Do numbers exist or were they just invented by humans?

File: 44 KB, 256x240, Vitruvius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Do numbers exist or were they just invented by humans? Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:28:03 2019 No.14305175 [Reply] [Original]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:29:08 2019 No.14305183 >Being an unironic Platonist

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:30:12 2019 No.14305188 >>14305183 Why would you think that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:30:41 2019 No.14305189 >>14305175 They are tools we use to order the universe as it presents itself to us. In this sense, yes, they are invented.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:31:29 2019 No.14305192 File: 7 KB, 232x217, frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Do words exist or were they just invented by humans?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:31:39 2019 No.14305194 >>14305188 If numbers don't exist as part of our reality there is no point in believing there is a transcendental world where they exist eternally without human interference

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:31:50 2019 No.14305196 >>14305175 Math is just like language, it was invented to communicate and acquire some sort of sense in the world.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:33:47 2019 No.14305209
File: 1.41 MB, 1500x971, ayVLPf27bUj9VdZmCbGg5K.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14305192
Well obviously words are concepts that humans came up with but math is different. The fibonacci sequence alone proves that the universe works according to math

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:34:01 2019 No.14305211 >>14305189 So as Heidegger thought, we are time(as we exist through it ourselves), where does that place space(knowing its relation to time)? That the finite measurement and experience in general presents itself to us, as us?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:35:03 2019 No.14305216 >>14305194 Is a circle finite?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:35:42 2019 No.14305219 To things exist or are they invented by humans ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:38:09 2019 No.14305232 If humans didn't exist 1+1 would still be 2 /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:38:30 2019 No.14305234 >>14305232 prove it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:39:04 2019 No.14305236 So numbers are the interpretation and measurement of existent space? Hmmmmm, interdasting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:39:37 2019 No.14305239 File: 55 KB, 1280x806, eHWK9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305234

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:40:06 2019 No.14305241 >>14305219 numbers don't = space retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:41:07 2019 No.14305248 >>14305239 but if size is infinite, isn't it relative?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:41:53 2019 No.14305254 >>14305248 It works in whatever scale you use

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:42:45 2019 No.14305258 >>14305209 >>14305239 >>14305209 This is the same as saying that 1 + 1 = 2 is still true because it’s the case that there exists 2 trees.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:43:51 2019 No.14305264 >>14305196 Nah language is just a way for humans to communicate. Math is more like the only way the human mind can even begin to grasp the complexity of the universe and even then most of us are too smooth brain

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:44:36 2019 No.14305270 >>14305211 I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure I know what you're getting at, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:44:51 2019 No.14305271 >>14305254 I don't think you understand what the infinite is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:45:04 2019 No.14305275 >>14305258 but there are examples of those things in the universe..

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:45:38 2019 No.14305280 >>14305264 Get out of the thread you dope

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:47:54 2019 No.14305296 >>14305270 Time doesn't exist yea?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:49:05 2019 No.14305306 File: 53 KB, 957x621, crime and punishment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is math an artificial creation, if so what is its genetic and psychological relation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:50:09 2019 No.14305317 >>14305275 So now you need to show why the existence of 2 trees proves that 1 + 1 = 2 is an existing concept outside of the mind

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:53:06 2019 No.14305328 File: 24 KB, 780x748, B507D671-E0C9-4B24-A885-19069FA5FBB7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305209 >the fibonacci sequence i wish non-mathematicians would not talk about math

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:59:50 2019 No.14305367 >>14305241 Speech = defect tard

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 12:59:50 2019 No.14305368 >>14305296 Time does exist, why wouldn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:06:23 2019 No.14305404 >>14305367 using = instead of equeals = retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:07:25 2019 No.14305407 >>14305368 Alright, apart from experience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:11:50 2019 No.14305437 >>14305216 It depends on the circle. A circle with a transfinite radius is not, but all other circles are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:14:58 2019 No.14305454 >>14305407 Time apart from experience? Do you mean time existing as a separate entity than just as a necessary contextualising element of experiences?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:15:16 2019 No.14305457 Everyone in this thread (other than me) is a retard. Math was invented, but numbers exist independently.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:16:02 2019 No.14305459 >>14305232 1, +, = and 2 are all signs that have various meanings. Your proposal only holds true for a very specific domain, and there are a great variety of domains where your proposal is incorrect or undefined.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:16:45 2019 No.14305462 Numbers are eternal and immutable, they are more real than you and I and in fact impose themselves on this sensible world

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:17:06 2019 No.14305465 >>14305368 Time doesn't necessarily exist, time arrows do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:19:05 2019 No.14305473 >>14305462 0/0 0^0

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:19:06 2019 No.14305474 >>14305175 numbers dont exist only circles and lines exist in the universe nothing else

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:21:52 2019 No.14305492 >>14305474 Circles are lines.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:27:16 2019 No.14305520

I would argue that math is a mode of perception, a byproduct of perceptually categorizing the world into distinct shapes and entities. Number exists independently of humans in the sense that any intelligent being would converge on an understanding of number. As numeracy is a necessary embodiment of the sensory partitioning of the world. Mathematics has clear impacts on the world. It enables us to manipulate it in a manner that is singular and exclusive. Any concept of number for any possible intelligence must be the same; no being can have a different concept of zero. This does not mean that numbers "exist" in some metaphysical platonic realm of Numberlandia, but rather, they emerge as a deterministic rule through an interaction of any sufficiently developed intelligence and sensory apparatus with respect to the physical structure of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:34:49 2019 No.14305541 >>14305437 >A circle with a transfinite radius is not huh? >>14305454 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:35:51 2019 No.14305549 File: 28 KB, 1027x731, succeeded tard pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305492 >Circles are lines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:38:08 2019 No.14305564 >>14305549 lines are circles (in the limit as the radius approaches infinity)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:42:01 2019 No.14305578 perception is of difference. Math is the quantification of difference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:42:41 2019 No.14305581 File: 26 KB, 474x474, Crying dunce pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305564 haha infinidy :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:43:42 2019 No.14305587 >>14305564 He's trolling anon, don't engage him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:43:57 2019 No.14305588 >>14305581 I literally used the limit so you wouldn't do this. why you gotta be like that. go back to Calculus I

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:45:38 2019 No.14305599 I don't understand how anyone could think that numbers only exist in our head. Are there people who have serious doubts as to whetber a book with 140 pages would be heavier than a book with 50 pages (all else equal etc.)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:46:50 2019 No.14305606 >>14305599 >believing that there books are for sure real and objective OH NONONONONONONO NONONONONO

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:47:11 2019 No.14305610 File: 21 KB, 640x619, Angry autistic wojakl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305588 IT'S ALWAYS INFINITY!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:48:14 2019 No.14305615 they exist because they were invented by humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:48:43 2019 No.14305620 >>14305610 The limit operation captures the Aristotelian notion of potential infinity. There's no actual infinity here, trollanon, do not worry

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:50:24 2019 No.14305626 >>14305620 YOU, can't square the circle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:52:59 2019 No.14305638 >>14305626 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_circle-squaring_problem No

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:54:19 2019 No.14305646 >>14305638 I've read Aristotle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:58:00 2019 No.14305668 >>14305606 Do you think that literally everything is inside your head? I guess you also believe in the afterlife then because your body is inside your mind anyway so when it gets destroyed you are going to carry on trololo

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:58:21 2019 No.14305672

>>14305175
Consider the following:
There are two kinds of people, realists, and nominalists.
Realists constructed belief systems and philosophies that lead to wellbeing, sanity and meaning.
Nominalists constructed nothing, but live on tearing down already existing structures, and they gave us insecurity, doubt, scepticism and nihilism.
So then it comes to the following. Is one of the above two dependent on the other one? If so, the one that is dependent is weaker.
If you consider strength to be good, go with the one that is being depended upon.
It's basically your choice.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:18:57 2019 No.14305772

>>14305175
Things exist in quantity & shape. That description of them in mathematics is not the same thing as what's described, doesn't imply that number is separate from what is. It seems to, but that seeming is inseparable from the thoughtful detachment of doing mathematics. It's a necessary illusion that people who fall for metaphysics can't see as such. Metaphysics is analogous to such turns of phrase as "literal interpretation" and other nonsense.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:20:29 2019 No.14305783

>>14305175
We humans invented numbers to apply our knowledge to the world around us. Numbers have huge advantages as they explain virtually everything in a neat and tidy way, with very few contradictions; contradictions being why do pi go on forever or what is ''e''? Numbers are scientifically valid because we can use them to build symmetrical buildings and make pyramids, or make Trump Tower.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:34:54 2019 No.14305865 >>14305564 (((infinity))) isn't real

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:40:02 2019 No.14305901 >>14305865 see >>14305620

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:41:34 2019 No.14305913 >>14305672 Based. What is this idea from?

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:46:33 2019 No.14305955

>>14305913
I'm pretty sure it's just common sense bro.
If you believe that truth exists, then you can have values and good and evil. If you don't believe in truth, then good and evil don't really exist, there are only preferences. Make your choice and roll with it.
I roll with truth because it works for me. Some people have a really hard time making truth work, so they delve into the territory of subjectivism and relativism because they feel that it empowers them to do whatever they want without the need to justify anything, but that is really a slippery slope towards demonhood.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:47:59 2019 No.14305966 >>14305672 This is so retarded. Skepticism and critique exist to strengthen existing structures, not tear them down

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:49:40 2019 No.14305980 >>14305966 >This is so retarded It's ok for you to think that. >Skepticism and critique exist to strengthen existing structures When did that ever occur? >not tear them down Oh really? Tell that to atheistards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:51:37 2019 No.14305997 >>14305966 >muh free market place of ideas and rational debate That was never a thing dude. It's just mindless emotional shitflinging from all sides who hate each other's ideas. Philosophy is basically muh feels taken to a pseudo-intellectual level.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:54:04 2019 No.14306012 [DELETED]

>>14305465
>>14305541
I think I'm getting the gist of what you're saying. The idea that time itself is only a human quantification of something that is, in itself, far greater than we can comprehend? i.e. the concept of moving back-and-forth in time is something strictly reserved for consciousnesses located on our plane of reality, whereas a being that exists in higher dimensions may see time as being more similar to what space is for us (something that can be moved about in freely), or something else entirely. Equally, there are objects and consciousnesses that exist in only one 'part' of time, and therefore have no concept of past and future, only present. Is that something close to what you're saying?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:54:15 2019 No.14306014 >>14305966 Define skepticism and define critique.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:54:25 2019 No.14306016

'Time' doesn't pass it just is.

>You see a bird flying
>you make a note of it
prove the bird was there, you can't. All you can do is currently think about it or currently look at evidence, there is no way to prove the bird was there in the past. You could theorise it but never prove it. We think time moves forward and we can't do anything about that like we are in a stream, but we are actually standing dead still. Our mind processes memories as things that happend before now, but those memories are brought up and created in the now, they just give you a false sense that there was time before you because that would be the logical conclusion of having a memory, and also time ahead of you where you will go towards. These are just figments of your brain to make sense of the world so your brain can focus on keeping your body alive. Time itself doesn't exist.
There is no way to prove time has passed without referencing to a fact that can no longer be proven.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:56:05 2019 No.14306029

>>14305980
>>14305997
I doubt either of you have ever seriously studied philosophy. Philosophers do build on each other's ideas, and point out flaws. Yeah there's a lot of personal ideas inserted into individual philosopher's work, but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute anything to the field/get abstracted out of the discourse

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:57:23 2019 No.14306037 >>14306014 "no" read Descartes and Kant

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:57:32 2019 No.14306039

>>14305955

It's one of those things that I think about a lot. Nothing makes me seethe more than people who just shit over things because they can't (or don't even try) to create something.
But I like the way you put it as dependency, because well, that's just so true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:58:38 2019 No.14306047 >>14305966 Over millions of people and thousands of years maybe. The individual skeptic is just an edgelord incapable of creating something meaningful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:58:41 2019 No.14306048 >>14305955 Real truth should be absolutely invulnerable to skepticism

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:58:48 2019 No.14306050 >>14306016 What if I take a photo of the bird in flight?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 14:59:37 2019 No.14306054 >>14305317 Yes yes, the law of identity cannot be proven, but nature abides by mathematics. Stop being edgy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:02:51 2019 No.14306077 >>14306048 Real truth is. Our perspectives on it? Quite a different story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:03:11 2019 No.14306080 >>14306012 Yeah, you're pretty much there. The first anon wasn't me tho.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:03:52 2019 No.14306091 >>14306029 Nobody disagreed with this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:05:04 2019 No.14306103 >>14306037 >"no" >do what I say "no"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:06:18 2019 No.14306113 >>14306016 If time doesn't exist then why is the cheese in my fridge moldy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:06:25 2019 No.14306117 >>14306050 when you look at the photo you are in the now, and so is the photo. If you add to that that that was the bird in flight two days ago that is a theory you can never prove.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:08:14 2019 No.14306131 >>14306113 because the cheese in your fridge right now is moldy. If you add "it is moldy since I left it for a week" that is a theory about something that you can't prove (anymore).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:09:09 2019 No.14306140 >>14306077 Exactly why we need skepticism and multiple perspectives to improve our own

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:11:13 2019 No.14306150 >>14306103 just saying that if you shouldn't ask for "definitions"that you can nitpick to give yourself an upper hand when these terms are already well understood in the field

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:12:14 2019 No.14306156 >>14306150 that you shouldn't*

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:15:29 2019 No.14306174 >>14306131 >Responding seriously to a shitpost But no, really, if decay is real then time is real by definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:15:50 2019 No.14306176 >>14306131 this is why skepticism should kys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:21:42 2019 No.14306218 >>14306174 you can't prove decay I'm not joking right now if you look at something that is "decaying" you only see it in the now-state which doesn't prove it was once more and will be less.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:24:03 2019 No.14306233 [DELETED]

>>14306117
Hm, okay. I think it's silly to say time doesn't exist because you can't prove that the past occurred. You can't 'prove' that you exist, if you're going to remove yourself to such an abstract position as this. How do you even know there is a 'now', considering you have no temporal context in which to situate the present?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:24:18 2019 No.14306236 >>14306176 will you fight or perish like a dog?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:26:01 2019 No.14306243 >>14306176 >I don't understand how this could be reincorporated into my worldview so just throw it out wahhh

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:27:05 2019 No.14306250 >>14306233 I prove that I exist by my existence silly

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:27:15 2019 No.14306252

>>14306233
you would only need context if you assume there was a before and is gonna be an after, to which you situate the present. I am experiencing the now, I don't and will never experience the past and when I eventually experience the future, it will be the new present.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:27:40 2019 No.14306255 Skeptics be like: no truth is knowable!!! ...except this one!

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:30:13 2019 No.14306279 [DELETED]

>>14306252
Still, you don't actually believe what you are saying. True, I can't prove that the past happened, nor can I prove that the future will happen, but I can give you overwhelming evidence that suggests both concepts do exist. This is an extreme hypothesis you are working on, and if you actually believed it then I doubt you'd be living in the same way you are now. It's fun to think about, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:31:24 2019 No.14306284 mathematics is the simplest form of comprehension towards the universe, it's not something the humans made, maybe we translated it to our own language, but it was always there. Even animals can count, you dimwits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:32:49 2019 No.14306296 >>14306279 Yeah it's a fun thought experiment, but I'm gonna lose my shit when they find out Schrodinger's Cat also works on time.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:33:01 2019 No.14306298

>>14305175
Here’s what confuses me, we build circuits based on Boolean algebra. If we build circuits to output values and then combine those circuits the values outputted are equal to those predicted by logic. This suggests the universe follows a logical order, the electric current follows a predictable behaviour. You can extrapolate all the laws of maths from the behaviour of circuits. Does this not suggest mathematics is real outside of us? If maths describes underlying properties then those properties are real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:33:54 2019 No.14306304 >>14306279 >and if you actually believed it then I doubt you'd be living in the same way you are now what do you mean by this btw

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:42:21 2019 No.14306363 >>14306279 You wanna know what's weird? I've never thought about this until tonight and when I just went to check the time it turned out my clock froze tonight too. ngl, kinda scared rn (right now)

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:46:18 2019 No.14306390 [DELETED]

>>14306304
If you really believed there was no such thing as causality, then I find it hard to imagine that you wouldn't just exist in a permanent state of crippling doubt about the nature of your existence. How can you know that anything you're doing is right if you cannot view your actions as having both a cause and an effect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:47:23 2019 No.14306396 >>14306363 If it makes you feel better, you posted that 12 minutes after I posted what you're replying to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:48:36 2019 No.14306402 >>14305459 This is like saying you're using words wrong because the same word has a different meaning in a different language.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:52:17 2019 No.14306430 If Truth exists it must necessarily be immutable and absolute, otherwise it wouldnt be true. Either numbers are real, or nothing is true, and since cogito ergo sum can demomstrate an irrefutable proof, Truth must exist separate and independently

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:53:43 2019 No.14306438 >>14306430 Quantitative values are real, yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:53:45 2019 No.14306439 >>14306430 In what does 'cogito ergo sum' demonstrate an irrefutable proof, when it presupposes the existence of an 'I'?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:56:17 2019 No.14306455 >>14306439 The I is self demonstrating by the ability to think at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:57:09 2019 No.14306458 Only numbers exist in base reality, everything else is emergent

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:57:30 2019 No.14306459 >>14306439 Do you exist, anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:59:41 2019 No.14306474 Are we human, or are we dancer?

Hermit Thrush Sat Dec 7 15:59:43 2019 No.14306475

>>14305264

Mathematical knowledge is a more-or-less direct interpretation of the material world, how forms and physical laws interact. They're 1:1 the same for each individual human and don't reference subjective culture or experience (i.e. A2 + B2 = C2 isn't mutable whether the observer is a Hindu or Muslim, a Hellenic farmer or a Victorian professor)

Language is inherently an abstraction of material knowledge, because it is a collective construct. It's a system and tool of the human mind to extrapolate meaning from material observation/knowledge, and to refine that meaning through mutual exchange.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 15:59:59 2019 No.14306478 >>14306390 well you could just follow intuition but then you'd have to argue that intuition isn't you just learning from your past mistakes (or that you just imagined those mistakes). Either way You'd probably end up in a ward.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:03:40 2019 No.14306496 [DELETED]

>>14306459
I don't know, do I? 'I' may just be a little node on an array hallucinating all of this, or a mote of dust stuck on the undercarriage of a giant inter-dimensional bird. The question of whether it is me, myself, who is doing the thinking is entirely open to skepticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:04:43 2019 No.14306503 >>14306478 Very true. I like that you came up with an argument and then found the counter in the same sentence, you're a good thinker anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:05:39 2019 No.14306507 >>14306496 Pure sophistry. That little node is still an existent being capable of thought which still constitutes you

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:10:41 2019 No.14306531 >>14306507 I suppose the point is that there does not necessarily need to be a thinker for there to be a thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:12:19 2019 No.14306536 >>14306531 The thinker and the thinking are constituted of the same substance. If you think a thinker can only be a person then you've missed the point of cogito altogether

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:17:31 2019 No.14306565 >>14306503 glad I'm using my massive brain on hypotheticals about time instead of my overdue schoolwork.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:18:33 2019 No.14306573 >>14305175 Read Kant

>>	Hermit Thrush Sat Dec 7 16:24:09 2019 No.14306605 >>14306565 What's your schoolwork and what are you studying in general?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:25:44 2019 No.14306615 >>14306536 In what way are they? That's what Descartes claims, yes, but what is there to say that a thought can exist independent of its thinker?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:28:43 2019 No.14306635 >>14306496 I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:29:38 2019 No.14306641 >>14306605 i'm in law school, so reading and summarising.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:29:57 2019 No.14306643 >>14306615 logically the thought must follow on from the thinker

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:30:38 2019 No.14306649

>>14306615
Cogito ergo sum, more literally means thought therefore existence. There is thought therefore there is existence.
If there is thought there is thinking. By what means is thinking acomplished if not by a thinker (that which thinks)?
And since we know that thinking requires a thinker, and that the thinker can always be reduced back to the object of thought, it can be concluded that the rational substance is what both thought and the thinker consist of, making them the same being.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:33:58 2019 No.14306672 >>14306649 yep, can't have bread without a baker

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:34:20 2019 No.14306676 [DELETED]

>>14306643
Why?
>>14306649
I've been going about this the wrong way I think. What I'm trying to say is that, to say that 'thought therefore existence' is to presuppose existence. It is a tautology. Thought cannot exist without existence, and therefore the phrase is meaningless, you may as well be saying 'existence therefore existence'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:36:19 2019 No.14306688 >>14306676 I dont think cogito is synonymous with existence. You would have to propose solipsism for your statement to be true

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:38:54 2019 No.14306701 >>14306688 How is it not? Where is 'cogito' if not in existence? How are you able to talk about it, if it's inexistent?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:39:25 2019 No.14306705 >>14306676 Thought is bread and the thinker is the baker. Why are you resisting this? This post is the thought and the poster is the thinker.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:43:41 2019 No.14306740 >>14306701 >Where is 'cogito' if not in existence? It is in existence but not existence itself. Thats why existence is self evident

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:44:32 2019 No.14306749 [DELETED]

>>14306705
You're going far too far by saying that because you've just found some bread, there must be a baker around. There are an infinite set of possibilities for why the bread may be there, and your claim is effectively 'there is a baker, because he baked this'. There's no intrinsic truth-value there beyond the simple statement that the bread itself exists. Taking this away from yeasty analogies and back to the original thought; Descartes uses 'cogito' to justify far too much. 'I think, therefore I am' demands by necessity that existence of the 'I'. I cannot think, unless I already am, and therefore the 'think' statement is irrelevant. The only thing we can surmise is that 'thought is occurring', for we know nothing of the 'I' who is apparently thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:46:13 2019 No.14306764 >>14306749 I think therefore I am is a mistranslation Cogito ergo sum just means thought therefore existence, and I've already demonstrated that thought necessitates something which thinks, therefore a thinker, which is what we've identified as "I"

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:48:36 2019 No.14306783

>>14305175
The natural numbers were discovered, almost everything else is of human construction. However, this doesn’t count for the fact that mathematical constructions work extremely well with physical phenomena to the point where it’s sort of uncanny.
The ellipse was investigated by Menaechmus as a shape around 300BC and had no real use aside from geometry, then Kepler found that the orbit of planets around the sun was an ellipse.

>>	Hermit Thrush Sat Dec 7 16:54:00 2019 No.14306825 >>14306641 Neato. What was your undergraduate degree in and how are you enjoying it so far? What made you want to get into law?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:56:39 2019 No.14306845 >>14305175 if they are only an invention, then why nature responds to numbers? why the fuck engineering can build things using numbers? are we co-creating reality?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:58:43 2019 No.14306856 >>14305175 They are the ultimate prove if logical consistence, a rationalist wet dream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 16:59:40 2019 No.14306865 >>14306749 >bread can exist without being baked I'm honestly not interested in word games. Language is necessary for the exchange of ideas, if you aren't understanding or are deliberately misinterpreted then there's really no reason for discussion.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:03:12 2019 No.14306895

>>14306825
Well I'm in the Netherlands so its a very different path to take, I've done 4 years of Bachelor level Law (including a two year internship) and am at the moment doing a transfer year where I'm redoing the main courses on a Masters-level so I can get a Masters in a specific legal area (probably state law and/or criminal law).

I really, really like it. It's very theoretical with loads of history and when you have to apply it to a current case it is very much like solving a puzzle where you can be creative enough to solve it in different ways (but most of the time you just use the pieces you get from the law or jurisprudence). I feel like you have plenty of options to show talent and creativity though this system of arguing for a case so it isn't just a boring legal checklist to work off.

I didn't really know if I wanted to do law when I started (I sucked at math so I just figured to try it, it isn't 50k a year here) and really fell in love with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:12:15 2019 No.14306962 >>14306865 Yours is just a bad analogy, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:16:10 2019 No.14306983 >>14306764 I don't think you quite understand me. Cogito presupposes existence. You cannot have cogito without existence, therefore cogito ergo sum is a tautology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:17:35 2019 No.14306992 >>14306983 >he believes that it's literal what's with the surge of middle schoolers on 4chann*l lately?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:19:16 2019 No.14307011 >>14306992 You tell me. Shouldn't you be at some after school camp bullshit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:22:42 2019 No.14307042 >>14307011 haha epic burn fellow zoomer!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:29:46 2019 No.14307095 >>14306992 What on Earth are you talking about? How is 'cogito ergo sum' not literal?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:30:30 2019 No.14307100 >>14307042 He mad lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:30:52 2019 No.14307105 >>14306983 I dont think cogito presupposes existence but rather demonstrates it. We know that we are cognitive therefore we know that we exist. There some action or thing that is happening, which demonstrates existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:33:59 2019 No.14307126 >>14307095 Philosophy is not meant to be read literally, have you ever read it in an academic environment?

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:39:12 2019 No.14307153 [DELETED]

>>14307126
I study philosophy at university, anon. I honestly can't wrap my head around what you're trying to say here. You've completely ignored my point and you're rambling on about me taking the cogito literally, like that means anything at all. The very fact of the matter is that 'cogito ergo sum' is tautological. Can you give me a reason why it isn't? Instead of just calling me an idiot?

>>14307105
That is an entirely separate claim though, anon. I do not doubt that 'cognition is happening' is true, necessarily it must be. What I do find issue with is the taking of the demonstration of existence as affirming the existence of an 'I' that thinks. There is very little reason why there should necessarily be any form of identity attached to the phenomenon of occurring-cognition.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:39:37 2019 No.14307156

>>14305219
nothing exists the same way humans see it. just think of all the colours we're blind to or all the atoms that make up us and we can't feel.
in a way, things as they are conceived and considered by humans, don't really exist beyond them being human inventions.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:43:38 2019 No.14307179

It's kind of bugged me for a while that Pi (π) is such a weird number – 3.14159265359... and so on...

it makes me wonder if 3.131 should be thought of as 1. Should Pi (π) be 1?

Sure if you post images like >>14305239 as aesthetic proof of mathematical validity, Pi (π) should be an aesthetic number, seeing as every world, every star, every atom is shaped and guided by Pi (π)

surely, 1 2 3 is wrong and it should be π1 π2 π3, and so on

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:46:38 2019 No.14307200

>>14307153
I suppose the major disconnect between us is identifying what the "I" is.
I'm proposing the "I" to be a rational being with no other necessary qualities attatched. Whether or not I exist as my senses perceive me to, if my memories are real, or if i'm a brain in a vat are all secondary questions. Whatever is doing the thinking is the I, nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:59:04 2019 No.14307257 >>14305175 Why not both? >>14306845 >if they are only an invention, then why nature responds to numbers? Presumably because number were invented to describe something about the nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:59:45 2019 No.14307259 >>14307257 If they correspond to reality then they arent invented

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 18:03:07 2019 No.14307273 File: 14 KB, 268x326, Alexander_Grothendieck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /sci/ found this thread and is having a hearty laugh right now

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 18:19:39 2019 No.14307352 >>14307273 I've just looked through the catalog there and can't find a mention of this thread. What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:41:28 2019 No.14307738 >>14305270 Its Heidegger no one understands it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:42:18 2019 No.14307742 File: 150 KB, 616x732, Probosciger_aterrimus-20030511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14306895 >mfw then are swamp Germans on this board and we don't even know who they are Disgusting

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:51:14 2019 No.14307781 >>14307742 This is a swamp kraut board, all of philosophy is just footnotes on Spinoza

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:51:20 2019 No.14307782 >>14307273 /sci/ is full of morons who should recognize their inferiority to philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:52:47 2019 No.14307790 >>14307782 You serious? /sci/ mogs /lit/ when it comes to philsophy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:54:59 2019 No.14307793 >>14307781 >/lit/ is a philosophy board Can we give philosofags their containment board already? /lit/ should be fiction only.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:02:11 2019 No.14307825

>>14307273
Yeah this board is fucking trash, especially when it comes to mathematics and logic. Don't be fooled, most of the people here parading about philosophical concepts are just putting on pretty shows of cheap rhetoric. They talk about Plato because they can grasp Plato.

As soon as you venture off the meme'd to death classics, it becomes painfully aware that anons have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Sometimes they post an extremely hot take without provocation, excited as though they've come to some grand revelation, ignorant to the reality of just how woefully under-read they are.

Just look at this retard:
>>14306430

Hell, look at this entire fucking thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:48:13 2019 No.14308068 >>14307825 hurr durr me so smart

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 21:03:54 2019 No.14308138
File: 701 KB, 600x914, 98c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14307825
yeah this is so fucking true.
/lit/ spergs out in a pseud rage, when they come across something they can't parrot (via someone else's superior thought).
It's fucking cringe how these people read things and act they thought it independently.
Math tends to nudge the reader to think on their own, so they develop the ability to actually think.
being a parrot develops nothing.
This is the saddest shit I've ever seen. Niggas read GEB and think they are more intelligent than PhD mathematicians.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 21:12:01 2019 No.14308164 [DELETED]

>>14308138
Where has anyone here once said they were smarter than PhD mathematicians?
Are people just not allowed to debate epistemology in your sterile bugman world, is it verboten? I honestly can’t understand why you are so angry anon. Why would you make up such an obvious lie as ‘philosophy students can’t think independently, but maths students can’. What a mind, what an intellect! What a perfect specimen you are, anon, of the forever pathetic STEM-worm in his anaesthesic pulpit.This is an absolutely phenomenal cope, truly!

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 21:20:26 2019 No.14308190
File: 10 KB, 244x206, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14307825
>>14308138
>dang, man, this thread we are hanging out in is so lame
>yeah man it's super lame here, everyone here is like, a fag
>yeah everyone here is a pseud lmao
>hah yeah this thread is super lame man, not like /sci/ yo
>yeah man this board blows, just look at this thread lmao
>yeah this thread is retarded lmao
>lets find a cooler thread to hang out in
>man, there aren't any cooler threads, that's why i'm here in this thread, which is totally not cool and normally i wouldnt hang out in lame threads like these, but there are like no cool threads right now where i could effortpost, but like, right now, this thread is too lame to effortpost in, its not worth my time yo
>yeah man there arent any serious posters ITT so im not going to effortpost either, i'll just talk about how lame the thread is lmao
>yeah man

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 21:22:43 2019 No.14308197 >>14305473 Zero is not a real number anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 22:07:41 2019 No.14308348 >>14307790 Lmao no. Basic bitch materialism you'd expect from a 14 year old

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 22:08:44 2019 No.14308354 >>14307825 Low IQ cope

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 22:36:50 2019 No.14308447 This thread is like sci talking about literature, but the opposite

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 22:38:15 2019 No.14308452 >>14308447 No it isn’t. Not a single area of this thread has covered anything scientific. If you think it has, then your understanding of philosophy is absolutely woeful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 23:33:20 2019 No.14308695 >>14308452 Lmao take a chill pill my dude got litfags are so autistic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 23:44:24 2019 No.14308747 >>14308197 I think you'll find that zero is in fact contained in the real numbers, actually.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 00:42:19 2019 No.14309014 >>14306255 Based Schuon

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:08:08 2019 No.14309706 >>14306117 Every photo on your phone has a date when it was shot. And on my photo of the bird it says that it was taken two days ago.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:09:09 2019 No.14309709 >>14308747 0 and 1 are the only real numbers. Every other number is just a multiplication of the number 1

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:18:19 2019 No.14309741

>>14307259
"Water" corresponds to reality too but it clearly isn't real. When people used to say water, they referred to one of the elements but today they refer to H2O. But the ancient person and the modern person still mean the same thing. Clearly both water then and now is not real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:26:25 2019 No.14309767 >>14309741 >water isn't real

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:28:21 2019 No.14309775 >>14305175 They were invented by God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:30:13 2019 No.14309781 >>14309709 What do you multiply the number 1 with?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 04:33:38 2019 No.14309791 >>14309741 But they were talking about H20. They just didn't call it that because they didn't know water was made from hydrogen and two oxygens. They were still speaking of the same substance.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 05:07:43 2019 No.14309887

>>14309791
Not the guy you were replying to; back then, when people("educated" people) talked about water they didn't just refer to it as a substance existing in the "real" world, but also of the metaphysical concept, one of the middle elements, that binds the 2 elemnts that were actually supposed to make up the universe(fire and earth), together with air. It was believed back then, that god tried to fashion the world(universe) out of earth and fire, but due to their opposite natures(people back then belived the opposite of fire to be earth and not water) they repelled each other and so the middle elements(water to earth and air to fire) were created.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 05:09:13 2019 No.14309892 >>14305549 all circles "in matter" are polygons, there's no such thing as a curve

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 05:18:14 2019 No.14309917 >>14309781 Multiplication is really just repeating the number one over and over again 1x5 = (1+1+1+1+1) 2x5 = (1+1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1+1) 1 is real because it cant be reduced down to any other sum of numbers

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 05:22:58 2019 No.14309932 >>14309917 There is also an infinity of units (1's) between 0-1. 0.001,. 0.002 etc

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 05:28:37 2019 No.14309958 >>14305209 >do numbers exist? >"yes, of course math is real" OK but try answering the question that was asked

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 07:22:37 2019 No.14310310 >>14308695 Stop saying stupid shit then, retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 12:05:55 2019 No.14311408 >>14309887 Then "water" in that case doesnt corespond to reality so you're point is retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 12:23:17 2019 No.14311485 >>14305175 They're a human-made taxonomy to describe truths. The way we interpret/name/see them is invented. What they represent is real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 12:37:57 2019 No.14311560 YOU ARE THE NUMBERS

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 12:50:39 2019 No.14311640 >mfw the only things that exist are the friends we made along the way

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 12:52:46 2019 No.14311651

>>14305175
One of the common features of the DMT experience is that of mathematics, particularly that of intricate geometric overlays which cover the subject's visual field from top to bottom. There are also many reports of the so-called "entities" showing the user "higher-dimensional mathematical structures" which their minds cannot grasp either during the event or afterwards. Stories like this bring me to hypothesize that mathematics are indeed part of the fabric of the universe, and that human beings, being one specific expression of that universe and composed entirely OF the same universe, have connection to mathematical understandings by this principle of monism. In our 3-dimensional plane, abstract geometric shapes and patterns are more rare within our external environments, despite ourselves being intrinsically drawn towards them and embedding them in everything we create. But at higher planes of the universe, like those DMT enables access to, form has become increasingly molded towards perfect geometric structures. This is what I believe, anyway. I don't believe humans invented numbers or their ability to understand them, nor is it mere coincidence external phenomena seem to obey numerical laws so well.

Yes, I'm a "schizoposter" because I don't believe our third-dimensional plane is all that exists or that higher-intelligences are not also a possibility. When science speculates on it, it's "scientific". When I suggest it, it's "schizophrenic". I'm familiar with this hypocrisy by now, no need to remind me further.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:01:07 2019 No.14311691 >>14311651 based schizo

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:01:48 2019 No.14311696 >>14305865 Space isn't infinite? Where does it end?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:07:25 2019 No.14311732 >>14311560 Ooooooo spooky!

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:15:16 2019 No.14311783

>>14305175
Many of you seem to be imposing a completely illogical separation between "humans" and "the universe". If the universe refers to "everything", then of course humans would be a part of that, no different from any other item of nature. What you really mean to say is "the external environment". Do numbers exist in the external environment, or is it merely something inhabiting the mental contents of animal lifeforms? It's so frustrating to read people misuse the term "universe" every single time they mention it, failing to recognize that you are entirely made of the universe, and that anything we speak about is entirely the universe. The only sensible separation to be made is between the mental environment of sentient-lifeforms and the sensorial environment they inhabit, and to what extent the latter corresponds to the former. Both of these are equally the universe, but our language needs to be more finely-tuned to express the relevant distinctions. You are the universe experiencing itself (or even more accurately, experience-in-a-form-of-the universe) never forget that fact.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:15:34 2019 No.14311787 >>14307179 Kinda this. I like the idea of a mathematical truism for being the basic unit instead of an indistinct sense of an individual entity (1). However, the idea of whole numbers is useful when it comes to relitive things.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:28:55 2019 No.14311871
File: 36 KB, 540x431, Dnfc4TaUwAc-wNY.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>grug has apple gets another one two apple
>grug has two baskets of two apples
>grug splits 4 apples with grugrina each gets two
>grug gives one apple to grugerch
>grug creates an infinite apple by referring to the berries he gathered as x then dividing the apple on the number of berries he gathered while recognizing the fact that he can't gather negative berries
simple as

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 13:30:27 2019 No.14311881 >>14308164 based

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:11:21 2019 No.14312149
File: 429 KB, 938x660, 6E6251D9-DDE4-41DD-8D29-60A22083151D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14305175
Mathematics exists and will always exist with or without man. The numbers are a human label, true, but the relation between the numbers and how they behave is the same. Assuming you accept the same axioms as math you will end up with math no matter what you label the numbers and operations as; it's each mathematical object's relation and influence upon each other that is unchanging, not a label like "four".

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:16:45 2019 No.14312194 >>14311783 >babby's first monism

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:21:32 2019 No.14312223 >>14305175 The geometry of the universe exists independently of human beings, but arithmetic and set theory are human inventions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:21:50 2019 No.14312225 >>14305175 Numbers are an act of division. Counting the trees individually disregards that they are together a forest. One can argue that nature is one essence and cannot be divided except for by a human mind.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:22:03 2019 No.14312230

>>14312194
It's not a remotely popular sentiment at all, either within the sciences or larger culture. Most people's use of language betrays such an understanding every single sentence they make. The thread above is merely a minor example of this. But go ahead, pretend like you already knew better long ago or that everyone else is also on the same page.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:29:43 2019 No.14312285 >>14312225 Exactly. Which is why >>14312223 is true. From the point of view of physics, there is just one thing -- spacetime itself -- embedded with various local properties (fields).

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:31:01 2019 No.14312296 >>14306298 Just because a system created by humans has rules doesn't mean those rules are inherent properties of the universe. Is the art of riding a horse inherent to the universe? How about hydro dynamics?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:34:23 2019 No.14312323

>>14306783
The orbits are only ellipses when you decide that the center of the ellipse is fixed, but in reality it is not, basic relativity tells us that our entire knowledge of the universe is based off or a human perspective, and as such, all math is too. If you paint a landscape, and then stand on the mountain you painted, does the image that you saw to make painting still exist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 14:39:27 2019 No.14312349 >>14312285 What is the ontology of spacetime and fields? Name one physicist who thinks they aren't convenient fictions

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:05:56 2019 No.14312531 >>14312230 Material monism is the most retarded metaphysics possible.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:19:12 2019 No.14312615

>>14311485
This is it chief.
>>14311651
>Hallucinogens
>Universal truths regarding planes
Nah, hallucinogens are really only useful in diminishing your perspective beholden by ego and allows your mind to realize true motives and desire within the world around you. Anything else is purely you being caught up in the haywire effect that is your brain dropping the floodgates of stimulus into your senses.
>>14312349
Based
>>14305175
Like some others said, mathematics is simply our interpretation of the logos to the best of our human abilities. Desu. Numbers aren’t theoretically a “real” thing, but the rules they outline, are.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:39:54 2019 No.14312729

>>14312531
I'm an idealist, but I use the "universe" as my designation for "everything", both the unchanging immaterial consciousness and the manifest temporal phenomena inside of it. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that virtually everyone is misusing these terms when they speak about "human beings" and "the universe".

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:44:46 2019 No.14312763

Mathematics is an abstraction of creation. We have what has been made around us, what mathematics is, is an ideal form of that reality. Technically speaking, it is these imperfections which makes organic life so interesting. If everything were perfection, after all, there would be nothing to strive for or to perfect. Clearly through these perfect 'forms' things exist as a sort of relation to a design, and human beings act on these designs.

They exist so much as we try to approximate reality to their existence, but metaphysically these forms can never exist in reality, they must be the Aristotleian 'principles' which exist before the material reality, and is what the material reality is based on. :3

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:48:14 2019 No.14312780

>>14312349
Fields are just mathematical constructs used to specify the local properties of spacetime. So a mathematical fiction, if you like. Spacetime itself is quite real, and has real local properties and a real geometric shape. Not only is spacetime real, from the point of view of physics, it is the only thing that is real. "Particles" are just another kind of field; they don't exist as distinguishable entities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:57:38 2019 No.14312828 >>14312729 >misusing these terms when they speak about "human beings" and "the universe Its only misuse if you're a monist, which i'm not, so my language is perfectly compatible with actuality.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:22:44 2019 No.14312972
File: 33 KB, 625x626, 1528713046355.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14306218
This is retarded. Did your parents bathe you in cocaine when you were a child? Just because you can't see something or prove its existence in any way doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

I entertain the idea that time doesn't pass too, but c'mon you're just ridiculing yourself now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:25:17 2019 No.14312987 >>14312972 >>>/sci/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:30:23 2019 No.14313018 >>14311696 It is indefinite. Not infinite, you absolute moron. Read Guénon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:38:25 2019 No.14313079 >>14311696 Where does a sphere end? https://www.universetoday.com/143956/new-research-suggests-that-the-universe-is-a-sphere-and-not-flat-after-all/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:44:03 2019 No.14313116 >>14312987 Never ever posted there once in my life.Don't even lurk the board. That poster's philosophy is just shit. Cope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:57:37 2019 No.14313189 >>14313116 You cannot prove causality

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:24:41 2019 No.14313336 >>14308197 Zero is both a real number and an integer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:28:27 2019 No.14313353 We are time passengers

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:29:17 2019 No.14313359 File: 8 KB, 442x500, 1573591223855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14313189 >push ball >ball moves >you cannot prove causality!!!1

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:35:07 2019 No.14313392

>>14305457
To exoand on this anon's point, we can represent all numbers as sets of sets. Sets are a type of collectuon, and collections exist naturally so long as you accept "things exist." 0 can be represented as an empty set, and 1 the set comtaining the empty set, etc. All rationals and reals are derived from another set form and then Dedekind cuts, found in any real analysis book. The point is that we have invented a way to represent numbers. But the key is that when most people say "2" they aren't referring to this set of sets. They are referring to something that exists naturally. The fact that we have invented a way to represent this natural thing does not mean that's what it is. It is only a representstion.

Does /lit/ understand this or should I elaborate more?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:43:52 2019 No.14313439

>>14313392
To exoand on this anon's point, we can represent all numbers as sets of sets. Sets are a type of collectuon, and collections exist naturally so long as you accept "things exist."

But there is no evidence that there is more than one thing, at least according to physics. Physics does not respect the boundaries we impose on the world when we divide it up into "objects". So, all we know is that something exists, and not that more than one thing exists. So neither sets nor numbers exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:44:57 2019 No.14313445 >>14313439 *first line was meant to be quoted

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:51:38 2019 No.14313482

>>14313439
Even if there is only 1 thing in existence, we can count to one, but then we have 2 things. The first thing and the number 1. And now we can count to 2, etc. To say that these numbers don't also exist seems strange only because there's notging saying something has to be ohysically composed of matter or particles to "exist" any more than patterns "exist." I think this might be a counter to what you're saying? What do you think?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:03:48 2019 No.14313560

>>14313482
>Even if there is only 1 thing in existence, we can count to one, but then we have 2 things. The first thing and the number 1.
No, that's not how it works. Formally, "Something exists" can be expressed as:

(Exists x) (x = x)

That statement is not ontologically committed to the existence of numbers.

>saying something has to be ohysically composed of matter or particles to "exist"
Well yeah, I'm talking about the metaphysics of ultimate physical reality. "Entities" that are not spatiotemporally localizable, or that have no causal interaction with the physical world, may "exist" in a notional sense -- the way Sherlock Holmes "exists" on Baker Street. These are all inventions of the mind, though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:08:00 2019 No.14313587 >>14305672 You are from /pol/, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:08:08 2019 No.14313590 >>14313359 Read Hume.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:09:23 2019 No.14313602 >>14305175 They exist. Anyone who says otherwise has never studied enough mathematics, ignore the rampant dilettantism that goes on around here.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:12:15 2019 No.14313615

>>14305209
The universe isn't obeying mathematics. A cabbage doesnt stop and calculate the next number in the Fibonacci sequence to know how many copies to make, it just makes them.

Mathematics is the human language to describe the patterns which emerge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:12:56 2019 No.14313619 >>14313602 Great argument, bro.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:13:54 2019 No.14313628

>>14313359
Did you push the ball? Or do you repel the ball so that it moves away from you? Or was the ball simply moving to it's natural place, independent of your interference? Is it ego that leads man to attempt to justify his place in the world by asserting that he can cause things? Just because something happens directly after another thing doesn't mean that other thing caused that something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:27:35 2019 No.14314015 >>14305196 but what does Math actually explains the world?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:30:58 2019 No.14314035 >>14313392 this means our universe is rational and the only way is to embrace Dionysus as our god to counter-balance too much rationality

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:43:41 2019 No.14314725 join general_lit https://discord.gg/wncDGcp

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 23:07:26 2019 No.14315199 >>14313359 Very low iq

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:51:12 2019 No.14316457

Actual math chad coming through to spark some neurons: You can't "wrap your head" around pi, right? Or any other irrational number. Well, some news for you: neither can you wrap your head around rational or even whole ones. "Pi" is a reference we invented to something we discovered. Same with 5 or any other number.

>but does it exist?
Shut the fuck up, the answer is above.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:54:12 2019 No.14316460 >>14311485 >>14312615 Good to see the gang has already gathered

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:06:51 2019 No.14317657

>>14305457
This.

Also, it's obvious that mathematical relations are not "invented" by humans, but rather discovered. Take the fact that the circumference of a circle is always its radius squared times pi (although the reason that pi is 3.1415 is in fact because of how we, as humans, have consciously decided how to structure our number system). We didn't "invent" that relationship. It was discovered.

"Quantities" exist independently. Numbers are an invented concept to deal with them, but the underlying thing exists (with or without humans to interpret them).

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:10:37 2019 No.14317669 >>14305175 Numbers exist I have met several of them

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:14:26 2019 No.14317689 >>14317669 I’ll admit, numbers have taken my lunch money and shoved me in a locker. Rough bunch

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:15:59 2019 No.14317698 1+1 is going to be 2 regardless of what symbols we use to describe it. People claiming math is a social construct are just retarded

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:22:29 2019 No.14317723

>>14305192
>>14305196
What they said.

>>14305175
Of course they don't exist, they are just man-made abstractions used to enable counting.

Nature doesn't create "one" apple. It creates an apple without and conscience which could even make it oblivious to the amount of apples. The only time the concept of that apple being one emerges, is when a human wants to describe how many apples there are.

>>14305232
This doesn't make numbers real. All you are saying is, that another conscious being's abstraction system used for counting would be equivalent to ours. That is, 1+1=2 might use different syntax, but it would still hold in that other system.

>>14305209
I'll give you an example of Fibonacci sequence in nature from wikipedia:
"Fibonacci numbers also appear in the pedigrees of idealized honeybees, according to the following rules:
If an egg is laid by an unmated female, it hatches a male or drone bee.
If, however, an egg was fertilized by a male, it hatches a female."

Thus, a male bee has 1 parent (umated female), 2 grandparents(mated female +male), 3 great grandparent (mated female + male, unmated female), 5 great-great-grandparents (mated female+male, unmated female, mated female+male). As you can see, the sequence arises from completely concrete biological functioning of bees, there is no concept of numbers anywhere that they would follow for the sake of aesthetics or whatever - concept of number and a Fibonacci sequence arises when a conscious being tries to count how many ancestors a bee has.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:25:56 2019 No.14317738 >>14317723 They are real in the abstract sense. 1+1=3 just isn't going to happen no matter what

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:28:43 2019 No.14317749 >>14316457 >muh semantics Stick to /sci/, clearly this is beyond you

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:30:17 2019 No.14317757 >>14305473 NaN

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:32:00 2019 No.14317768 >>14305606 this is your brain on continuously getting BTFO for several years

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:42:04 2019 No.14317831

>>14317738
What does "real in the abstract sense" mean? I'd consider that property not being "real" but being "correct" as in "it accurately describes the operation of counting 2 objects". The counting of course comes from how we perceive nature to be. Assuming our perception is accurate, this would indeed hold in any counting system, but the numbers would be as real as the word "cow" is real. I'm sure any other conscious being would have a concept for that animal as well, but that doesn't make the word somehow real. It is just used to describe perceived reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:46:05 2019 No.14317862 >>14317831 >our perception generates reality Low IQ

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:59:48 2019 No.14317950

>>14307179
Sure, [math]\pi[/math] (ratio between a perimeter of the circle and its diameter) could very easily be defined as "1". Of course, this can mean several things, but I assume you mean that our basic unit of counting for whole numbers will become what is now [math]\pi[/math]. You will be surprised to see the magic, where to count a single apple fruit on the floor in our current system, there will be a magical number of [math]\frac{1}{\pi} \approx 0.3183[/math] of apples on the floor.

>>14317862
>concepts used by conscious beings to count are real

mentally retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:04:17 2019 No.14317984 >>14317950 Extremely low IQ

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:24:07 2019 No.14318089 >>14317984 Nice arguments

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:31:16 2019 No.14318137 >>14318089 >physicalist solipsism because muh semantics Not really sure why that deserves a counter argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:34:45 2019 No.14318165 >>14317698 Only in certain fields does that hold true. Read more abstract algebra.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:48:02 2019 No.14318233

>>14318137
I am not saying that. I say that the principle of counting would most be the same in any system, but that numbers as basic instruments of counting makes no sense if there isn't someone who uses them to count. And nature itself doesn't count, only conscious beings do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:54:00 2019 No.14318257 >>14318165 While being moronic, he clearly meant arithmetic addition.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:09:37 2019 No.14318323

>>14318233
What are the origins of consciousness? How was it either developed or created without a preceding logical system that shaped it? That system, if God, would indicate a realm of Ideas and make numbers real. If Nature, it would still need to follow a pattern and process in which it devloped, also indicating logical structure and numbers independently existent

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:09:44 2019 No.14318324 >>14318257 Right, but his quantification of "always" would indicate a very specific kind of defecit in his thinking. 1+1=2 because of axioms, which were invented by humans. There are alternatives to these axioms that nullify his assertion.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:40:50 2019 No.14318448

>>14318323
As I said, number are exclusively concepts used for counting. Nature doesn't count and goes, one arms, two arms, now I'm done. The embrio (typically) forms two arms, but because of the completely mindless process, which comes from the way a self replicating mechanism (such as a human) developed - which started and then improved by pure chance. Nature would be equally happy to give someone 3 arms, or a 2.1 of them if the external factors or internal defects make it do so.

What I'm trying to say, is that nature never needs to count to create something, the same goes of consciousness. Numbers are not needed at any point. If they were, why wouldn't all physical constant be integers, for example? I think that would be much nicer. Or at least of in the same order of magnitude. Well, it was first the physical space which developed in a rather random way, and when humans tried to measure and count it, the concept of numbers arose.

>>14318324
>t. 1st year STEM undergraduate

Perhaps, but that doesn't contribute to the debate at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:56:33 2019 No.14318506 >>14318448 The matter isnt counting. What is counting constituted of? Does it correspond to actuality? If it does, then its constitution must be real

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:13:40 2019 No.14318576 >>14318324 >invented Why not discovered?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:21:18 2019 No.14318622

>>14318506
>What is counting constituted of? Does it correspond to actuality? If it does, then its constitution must be real

Yes, counting is a system, initially made to describe reality. As I said before, it's the same to the word "cow" not being real, yet describing a very real animal. The nature never has to point to a cow and say "this is a cow" for the cow to exist. However, I can also keep a concept of a cow, even if I decide to kill all cows and convert them to dust, leaving no real cow in the world. Supposing I'm the only one with the concept of a cow, if I die, the concept will cease to exist, because the only conscious mind to have constructed it ceased to exist. Nonetheless, if somehow the cows gets resurrected in the future, the humans then will develop a new concept of a cow, which would most likely be equivalent to mine.
On the other hand, I could keep the idea of the cow going forever, despite all the cows being dead, and when they got resurrected, my descendant would immediately know this is a cow.

>>14318576
Did Peano went to a walk in a park one day and stumbled across his axioms written on a leaf? Or took the leaf and looked it under the microscope, counted the veins in it and realised that the coded message in binary gave the axioms? No, he said, "how can I formalise the way we do maths" and wrote them down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:23:10 2019 No.14318630 >>14318324 1+1=2 even in cultures that have sense of logic whatsoever anon. You dont need axioms to do arithmetic at all.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:45:59 2019 No.14318715

>>14305175
>do numers exist
yes

>were the invented by humans?
most like discovered through the existential process. Numbers are like "virtual" forms of being, like categories, the void, the whole; they have no "actual" presence in our real life -material- experience.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:46:02 2019 No.14318718

>>14318622
>>14318622
You're confusing word and concept. The concept conforms to a real essence which is self existent, otherwise definitions would be impossible to discover
>looked it under the microscope
Axions are non physical and can be discovered through rationalism alone
Your whole worldview always goes back to materialism

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:53:08 2019 No.14318759 >>14318715 at some point in history we encountered with them and we have no access to the way we started using numbers as an incipient idea or closed abstract categories. cfr. the spinozian xenomonad vs the leibnizian closed monad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:53:35 2019 No.14318760 File: 1.79 MB, 5000x5000, 1555055984174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14318630 >You dont need axioms to do arithmetic at all. Oh dear. Oh deary deary dear.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:09:51 2019 No.14318868

Guys, seriously read Kant. You can’t prove whether math or numbers exist outside of your mind, because these exist as formal structures in the mind to begin with. You’ll never know whether the universe is actually organized mathematically or if you’re just constituted to perceive only that aspect of it. That’s why math and logic are based on axioms, these have to be accepted as truth because there’s nothing else in which they can stand. Like empirical knowledge, it’s recursive, we know it to be valid out of experience and the explanation of this can’t rely on experience itself without it being contradictory. These axioms and experience are the ground zero of cognition, where everything stands. Whatever is behind them is purely speculative and can never be verified through these methods themselves. You can’t empirically prove empricism and you can’t logically validate logic. But we know from elsewhere the validity of these methods. The argument about the formal existence of numbers is really pointless.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:23:12 2019 No.14318964

>>14305175
quantities and sets exist as mental tools to explain abstract concepts, so yes numbers do in fact exist.

If i see three sheep, i can say "quantity of sheep = 3". This is true, however, the means by which I choose to describe this reality can be different. In reality all of math exists concretely embeded within reality, but math as a tool is man-made.

tl;dr - math is discovered, and the tools we use to describe it are invented.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:07:47 2019 No.14319260

>>14318718
>You're confusing word and concept
I don't think so. In the case I have given, the word "cow" might change its syntax, but it still denote a four legged animal which gives milk or whatever.

>The concept conforms to a real essence which is self existent, otherwise definitions would be impossible to discover

Concept can describe a real essence, but that doesn't make the concept itself real. The concept will only exist for as long as at least one who has constructed it in its mind continues to live an keep it in its mind. And he created this concept as a description of what he perceived in nature, which might have been completely false. For example, he might have thought Sun was a deity riding in a chariot, which is completely false in reality - of course, his concept will be similar in a lot of points to the real one, such as that it rises in sets regularly. Yet, his flawed definition was good enough to communicate with others. Also, concept does not need to necessarily describe a real object.

>Axions are non physical and can be discovered through rationalism alone
Ok this is a fair point.

>Your whole worldview always goes back to materialism
I don't think classification of my world view matters.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:12:32 2019 No.14319282

>>14312296
>circuits
No because I can build a circuit and you can build a circuit, and we can connect those circuits and when we start a current at one end it will come out the other end depending on the sum of the logical events of those circuits. The fact is that nature is predictable, predictability is contingent on logic is it not?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:13:16 2019 No.14319287

>>14319260
> but that doesn't make the concept itself real.
different anon. This is a confused position. Ideas/concepts are typically descriptive and thus are used as aliases for concrete observed phenomena. For instance, the concept of "2" is not constructed but observed, however, the idea of "2" itself is constructed as a means to describe this "2-ness" property we have observed.

If you are going to assert that a concept can describe and yet is itself imaginary, then how can than concept hope to have any correlation to the reality it is describing?

Furthermore, the mere fact that similar scientific discoveries can be made on opposite sides of the world by completely different people and yet be very close to the exact truth about it refutes this idea that concepts and ideas are mere mental constructs.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:15:57 2019 No.14319299

>>14312296
The point is I can construct a circuit that outputs a number, you can construct a circuit that outputs a different number, a third person can then construct a circuit that will add our circuit values together without even knowing what they are. This means the flow of electrons is consistent, if they weren’t then every time I ran the circuit I’d get different values.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:25:08 2019 No.14319345 >>14305175 If they don't exist then how do bridges hold up

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:43:37 2019 No.14319441

>>14319260
>The concept will only exist for as long as at least one who has constructed it in its mind continues to live an keep it in its mind
But this suggests that reality is a projection of consciousness. How could you account for the creation of consciousness or the universality of ideas between consciousnesses?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:46:23 2019 No.14319458 >>14318760 Nice image macro, got an argument?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:07:59 2019 No.14319558

>>14319299
Actually depending on the circuit, it may be completely unpredictable. Electron's aren't little balls attached to atoms, but are more like probability density functions. If a given circuit is small enough, determinism goes out the windiw as the electron's location isn't deterministic to begin with.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:13:14 2019 No.14319583

>>14319299
Also that's incorrect. Without the ability to understand how the numbers are represented, an addition gate will not be able to be constructed. If it is constructed with the knowledge that of how both numbers are represented by the constituent inputs, then one cannot really say that it performs its task without knowledge of the numbers, as being constructed to do so indicates that it has, in some sense, knowledge of the numbers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:15:22 2019 No.14319597 >>14319458 anon are you slow? how well do you think we understand math? If i ask you what the square root of 2 is are you going to tell me a number? because you better fucking not

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:18:16 2019 No.14320257

>>14319458
Why does 1+1=2? How is this meaningful?

There is never any thought or abstract action without axioms. They are the atomic foundation of knowledge. Saying we can do any form of math without axioms is like saying that we can digest food without a digestive system.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:43:31 2019 No.14321641 File: 9 KB, 225x225, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] humans were invented by numbers

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:56:31 2019 No.14321671

Math intrinsically exists though the concepts we use to describe it such as symbols and terminology ar exhumation concepts and labels to give names to intrinsic concepts. We can deduce this by reducing math to somehtong we know must exist which is logic. If we say logic is false, we reach a contradiction as this statement being true uses logic which makes this statement false and logic true. If we continue toward the Peano axioms from this point, we may now define addition. If there is positive, what if we reversed the operation to take things away and we get subtraction. How about repeated addition, multiplication and the inverse division. Continue from here what if we don’t know the variable, algebra. What if we define a geometric space by putting all possible values into it and drawing a 2-D shape based upon it, graphing and functions. What if now we find the amount of space this graph uses and the space under it, calculus. What if we now See this calculus within algebraic style equations that deal with differences, differential equation. What if we have multiple values we need to take into Mac count that keep differing, partial differential equations. As a quicker method of multiplication of a number by itself, we have exponents but what if, we take the inverse of this operation, square roots. Okay now, we have negative numbers, how do we think of a square root of those, complex analysis and now we have many more concepts with this such as now a two dimensional number line and more efficient ways with dealing with rotations in 2 dimensions

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 02:07:53 2019 No.14321695

>>14321671
Cool but now what if we want to describe 3 dimensional rotations now that we rigorously defined 2- D rotations, welp we can try 3 D numbers but if we do that we get cucked by gimbal lock so nahhh, ik let’s try 4D numbers and quaternions. Cool now let’s go back to functions, what if we replace the function and abstraction it, seeing it as one value in an infinite range of functions base dupon whether we let one specific value we’ll call ti q = 1 and bingo banjo niw u got a- analog theory. Aight but back to shapes, well we can define them using functions and find their area using calculus we just invented but what if we could deform them while preserving the og holes (hahaha I’m Genos for thinking bout this so I’ll call it Genus). Boom Topology. Now, let’s see them numbers we made, cuz we have 19 fingers, we make it base 10 where every time the number is 10 it goes as another decimal place, now, some numbers multiply with each other and equal another number, we’ll call them composite cuz they’re COMPOS3D of two numbers if, how bout the ones that don’t seem to have any factors, we’ll they’re prime. Now, can we find the amount of prime numbers in a list of numbers, yes , how bout easily, idk. Remember those exponents we made, (yeah), let’s make an inverse and call it a logarithm. Hey, I bet that there r numbers we can’t represent finitely too let’s call them Irrational. Now, let’s invent the factorial by multiplying a number by every number below it. Now we got a pretty close distribution of prime approximation by saying the numbers of primes less than x is x/ln x, where on is the logarithm of an irrational number created by the sequence 1 + x^2/2! + x^3/3!....... and by now we pretty much have all the building blocks we need to recreate math. There’s a lot more we could create but I’m bored of shitposting on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 02:53:04 2019 No.14321759 /sci/ here. This thread alone convinced me that this board is retarded

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 03:21:11 2019 No.14321814

>>14309709
This is just false. I assume you're mistaking the reals for the naturals with respect to Peano Arithmetic, in which case 0 and 1 are the constants in that language, with every other natural number being defined as a number of applications of the successor to 1.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 08:24:53 2019 No.14322556

>>14319441
> But this suggests that reality is a projection of consciousness. How could you account for the creation of consciousness or the universality of ideas between consciousnesses?

No, it doesn't. Consciousness perceives and interprets reality. For example, you see the colours of the world through the limited spectrum of light that your eyes can see, and thus you have idea of a bear and bark both being "brown", despite the fact that would surely be of different "colours" if you were able to sense the entire spectrum, or at least a different part of it.

>>14319287
Take for example a koala. The first european settlers in Australia called them "koala bears" because due to its looks it had a property of "bearness" for them, despite the fact it was not a bear. This is because the koala doesn't have an inherent property of "bearness", but it was inferred onto it from the flawed constructed concept of "bearness" that they have developed to describe the animals they interacted with in their homelands.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 11:43:45 2019 No.14323303 >>14322556 >Consciousness perceives and interprets reality. Thats my point. we percieve and interpret numbers which exist outside of ourselves Same thing with color. Blue is just a wavelength right? Well it exists separare from us much the same way

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:04:14 2019 No.14323408

>>14323303
Yes. Blue is just a range of wavelengths of the oscillation of electromagnetic field, which exists in the real world. We, the conscious beings, observe this as a concept of "colour", which we call "blue", and not as a particular oscillation. However in nature, there is no concept of this particular range being a particular colour or a "colour" at all, it's simply a bunch of photons with a particular range of energies. And we use this concept to convey the information of how this looks like to someone, who perceives it in the same way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:14:09 2019 No.14323447 What is an invention? Something that is referenced from real life, an innovation. From that, we can approve numbers existed before humans. We put our human spin on our understanding of numbers, and we call it "numbers".

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:28:53 2019 No.14323540 >>14323447 Are dragons which spit fire an invention? Are complex numbers an invention?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:36:59 2019 No.14323580 >>14305175 Whohooahohoho A building looks vaguely like a basic shape????? MIND BLOWN WOOOOOOOOO THATS CRAZY IS THIS. (ugh yeah) THE ILLUMINATION ???? ESKEETITIT

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:13:21 2019 No.14324162 >>14305175 Math exists in the same way that any and all logic games exists - by definition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:23:57 2019 No.14324258 >>14323408 You're just codeswitching. The wavelength and the color are the same thing. Its just wordplay at this point

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:25:04 2019 No.14324264 >>14323580 Imagine not even grasping the golden mean

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:29:10 2019 No.14324284 >>14324258 >The wavelength and the color are the same thing No, they aren't... What colour are the electromagnetic waves in your microwave? There is no concept of colour outside of the narrow range of wavelengths that you can sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:30:47 2019 No.14324290 >>14324284 Nonsense, i'm obviously talking about the visible spectrum. It doesnt matter that our eyes act as a filter. What is being filtered exists in itself regardless.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:41:27 2019 No.14324333

>>14324290
And how are the wavelengths of the visible spectrum special, apart from the fact that you can sense them, that the concepts of colour don't apply to them? You have seen the light and you wanted to describe it and created the concept of a colour, which wasn't inherent to the light itself. The nature didn't go, this is blue light and this is green; it generated a continuous spectrum of light, oblivious about the concepts such as colour.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:27:14 2019 No.14324873

>>14324333
>special
This sounds like a loaded term. My argument is that they're self existent, and the filter of our senses can be compared to the filter of our cognition, suggesting that Forms do indeed exist. You're again arguing semantics. It doesnt matter what we call it. We can call microwaves niggerfuckers and we can call blue an asslicker. But the fact remains, there is order and organization of things, shaped by nonmaterial processes which are of a logical nature. We dont make the order, we discover it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:55:34 2019 No.14325401 >>14321671 >>14321695 Based and pure-mathematics pilled

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:01:37 2019 No.14325435 File: 8 KB, 300x168, 'Big' Brain Wojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14321671 >>14321695

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:14:06 2019 No.14325517

>>14305175
The downward-pointing pentagram corresponds neatly to the structure there, but the upward one doesn't fit anywhere. That's a shitty image. The boundary circle only touches the ground and the apex. Lame

TLDR maths describes, weirdos conflate the map and the territory, confusing themselves.
>>14305264
>absolute shit-show of a sentence
>probably phone-posted on a toilet with fat, greasy fingers
>ends with an insult

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:24:02 2019 No.14325563

>>14305672
It's the addiction to certainty that tears life down.
>lumping insecurity, doubt, skepticism in with nihilism
We can't be safe WITH or FROM the Universe, it's not a binary choice, either, we have to navigate between the two and do what we can to mitigate chance. Being comfortable with insoluble mystery is a strength.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:28:13 2019 No.14325590
File: 1.99 MB, 369x271, 1298755073402.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14305672
>There are two kinds of people
those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't.

>>14305955
>If you believe that truth exists
Nobody with a mind bases anything on belief, which is a choice. You can start a sentence with "It seems to me that..." then be prepared to answer questions asking why it seems that way to you, but beliefs don't admit questions and when they survive using faith, which is belief contrary to available evidence, they turn into the opposite of knowledge and thought.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:16:14 2019 No.14325860 both nigga they exist as ideal objects but they gained meaningful reality when we named them

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:13:05 2019 No.14326205 >>14305175 If p then q If 1 then 1 Therefore 1 is 1 Wow this logic business is really easy!

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:52:21 2019 No.14326734

I skimmed the thread, but i didnt see anyone define "number" or "existence"

So you all look like dipshits, each arguing with your unstated preconceptions of their definitions, basically all arguing in different languages

Existence is an event. You're all too uneducated to understand this, but read heidegger for a start. We don't even need to understand this though. We'll just do it with "numbering"

Numbers are that which are numbered from a particular point of view in space, the numberer who is numbering.

Therefore, "numbers" exist only in that they are numbered in time by a numberer. A numberer must have certain characteristics, most importantly some form of temporality. A human can number things, so can a dog probably. Maybe even plants. A rock, a planet, an atom, likely can't number things.

In a basic sense, numbers are invented. But to be more specific, numbers are numbered by numberers numbering.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:08:38 2019 No.14326815

>>14321671
>>14321695
and this really only explains the evolution of how we developed different math fields to explain the physical world.

Starting in 19th century we started working backwards. How to generalize calculus non-euclidean geometries, how to generalize algebra to fields outside of real/complex numbers, how to generalize geometry to spaces that are invariant to warping (i.e. topology), and finally how to generalize tradtional set and functions to any object and operation.

By the time we reach the abstract latter sections, the fixation with "number" is completely irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:16:13 2019 No.14326843 >>14326205 You didnt even do it correctly

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:23:15 2019 No.14326884 >>14305175 numbers are the representations humans use for counts of stuff I guess

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:30:52 2019 No.14326918 Numbers are the only thing that exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:32:14 2019 No.14326925 File: 14 KB, 317x396, 1553976857188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >time isn't real, clocks are

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:40:46 2019 No.14327215

>>14305175
Numbers are a description of the divisions we perceive in the universe, and the number one represents unity, and two a scission. Continue the splitting of and you get the whole sequence of the real numbers. A better question would be whether or not the number one exists as a subsistent entity apart from a material object representing an undivided thing. The answer is no. One does not exist apart from the object that is undivided, since one is indescribable apart from external objects, except as that which is undivided, yet if it does not pertain to any object other than itself then it has no meaning unless one is itself an object. Point to me where the number one exists apart from external attributions to undivided things and I will concede that numbers exists.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:47:44 2019 No.14327244

>>14320257
1+1=2 works flawlessly when given as a physical description. You have one stone, another has another stone, place them next to each other and we consider it two stones.

You dont need a logical apparatus to get that far in mathematics.

>There is never any thought or abstract action without axioms.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. People can follow rules without them being axioms in a strict sense, if I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt you're using axiom incredibly loosely here.

>They are the atomic foundation of knowledge. Saying we can do any form of math without axioms is like saying that we can digest food without a digestive system

Not at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:48:54 2019 No.14327252 >>14319597 Why wouldn't you call it a number? Because its irrational and you're afraid of anything which isn't a fraction?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:53:30 2019 No.14327275 File: 308 KB, 267x200, mj.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14305175 ITT humanitards trying to understand the concept of axioms

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:55:30 2019 No.14327287 >>14305175 Yes and Yes. Numbers exist, we invented them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 00:06:00 2019 No.14327329

>>14327287
Not really. The biggest issue with this line of reasoning is the choices for mathematics are not arbitrary.

Say you had a bag of equally sized rocks. You dump out the rocks and try to arrange them next to each other and in rows to make a perfect square. But no matter what you try, you can't do it. Hmm. However, you find one more rock, and suddenly you can!

Natural numbers are the perfect mathematical tool to explain this. We can grasp the physical problem above mathematically as one of divisors of the amount of rocks you have, and how some numbers are perfect squares.. when the number of rocks you have is a perfect square, you can arrange them in a square shape.

If mathematics was invented by humans, this should be an arbitrary choice. But it's not, you cant redefine numbers in a different way to escape physical reality.

That's not to say there aren't weird philosophical issues with infinity or the continuum. But there's an absolute necessary parity between basic counting numbers and reality that is not just a figment of our minds but represents a more fundamental relationship between the physical world and human cognition.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 00:48:00 2019 No.14327497

>>14327244
>And we consider it two stones
Only because we have agreed that the two stones have discrete identities, we have agreed on the concept of categorization and metrics, and we have agreed that they may be considered together. You have presupposed that I will accept your notion of quantity, which relies on a naive framework in which both discrete things can be considered as interchangeable. I am just as liable to reject your notion, as despite our stones being of similar texture, hardness, size and weight, my stone is used for killing birds. It is the only stone used for killing birds. Were I to have posession of both of our stones, and I were to lose my stone, in your analogy using naive logic you are assuming that I will understand that your stone can be used to kill birds as well. In this sense, I do not have 2 stones. I have my stone and I have your stone, the grouping is never quantified.

>You don't need a logical apparatus to get that far in mathematics
You certainly do, though you may not notice it. The moment "true" and "false" enter the fray in any arrangement, we are working within a logical apparatus.

>strict sense
>incredibly loosely
You are tacitly playing semantics at this point. That's not an acceptable argument in any form.

>Not at all
Useful relational information is the positive correlation between two things, which in itself is reliant on the ability to take those positive relationships and understand them as true. I can know that upon X conditions, Y will happen (or MAY happen), and I may know that A features B property. These are precisely what an axiom is - not only the skeleton of causality, but of knowledge itself.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 01:47:29 2019 No.14327707

>>14327329
>the choices for mathematics are not arbitrary.
they are arbitrary. higher level mathematics is essentially taking our arbitrary and specific original choices for defining numbers/math and finding general structures and relations that happen to include them and much more

>you cant redefine numbers in a different way to escape physical reality.
yes you can, you just change base or scale. You say you have one rock, I say you have 6 moles of atoms.

you keep saying 'number', but your idea of number is inconsistent. You say "counting numbers" but then you can't use counting numbers (i.e. integers) for division (your square example). You need rational numbers. But then you can't use rational numbers to make a circle, you need real numbers. But then you can't use real numbers alone to explain audio, electric, or light signals, you need complex numbers. But then if you are in the domain of complex numbers, the easy ordering and addition of integers doesn't apply so it turns out your "basic counting numbers" actually don't describe reality, they just superficially described a narrow set of problems given certain conditions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:34:50 2019 No.14327854 >>14327244 https://youtu.be/0-pL2J0ZB8g This will help clarify literally the entire thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:38:43 2019 No.14327860 Math is a sense like touch or smell.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:40:32 2019 No.14327867 Does language exist or is it just invented by humans?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:41:53 2019 No.14327872 >>14327854 imagine the sense like touch or smell

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:45:41 2019 No.14327891 >>14327872 I would like to touch and smell that girl, yes

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:15:08 2019 No.14327969 >>14327244 This is unironically a major point of Wittgenstein

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:27:06 2019 No.14328484

>>14327497
>Only because we have agreed that the two stones have discrete identities, we have agreed on the concept of categorization and metrics, and we have agreed that they may be considered together.
There is no agreement here. Even infants begin parsing the world as a set of discrete physical bodies. It's an immutable part of human psychology.

>You have presupposed that I will accept your notion of quantity, which relies on a naive framework in which both discrete things can be considered as interchangeable.
Yeah I presupposed you're a human being.

>I am just as liable to reject your notion, as despite our stones being of similar texture, hardness, size and weight, my stone is used for killing birds.
How you categorize is irrelevant, so long as you can differentiate physical objects (which you're forced to, it's an immutable part of human psychology) then the concept of counting numbers arises. Whether you dispute categorizations holds no relevance. I.E., instead of two stones you can run the same experiment with two "anythings", the point isn't they have to be the same type but differentiable.

>You certainly do, though you may not notice it. The moment "true" and "false" enter the fray in any arrangement, we are working within a logical apparatus.
You and I are using logic differently then. You're basically treating any rule a person follows as logic, which is not how I'm using it. I'm confining it to actual learned study of logic. Your usage is so loose that basically all human mental activity is logical.

>You are tacitly playing semantics at this point. That's not an acceptable argument in any form.
No, I'm using words in direct and widely accepted forms.

>I can know that upon X conditions, Y will happen (or MAY happen), and I may know that A features B property. These are precisely what an axiom is - not only the skeleton of causality, but of knowledge itself.
You dont know what you're talking about and are using words incorrectly. Axiom has no meaning without relation to a logical system - has nothing to do whatsoever with a notion of causality. Go read a logic textbook so you can familiarize yourself with the terminology.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:41:31 2019 No.14328527

You can objectively reduce anything to act on an individual scale, so logically you can assume that a thing such as quantities are a human concept. Numbers are a systematization of certain quantities, so I would argue that numbers are like language; a way to process certain information for the human mind to grasp.

Math, chemistry, physics, the core concepts of the universe all exist without human beings quantifying them. A single hydrogen atom does not see itself working in unison with another hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom to form a molecule of water, neither does the electrons and neutrons that make up the individual atoms see themselves as working in unison to form those atoms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 12:25:48 2019 No.14329823 >>14327275 Explain to us then, oh glorious STEM genius

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 13:49:32 2019 No.14330239 >>14318165 In the real numbers and base 10 1+1 will always = 2.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 14:07:31 2019 No.14330344

>>14318868
This. But really this thread is just another example of how the anglo mind cant get over this and then proceeds to struggle with it and wiggle around in the paradigm from Russell through contemporary philosophy of [insert your favorite academic edgelord “specialization” here]. This is why Schopenhauer wanted to fucking quit and Nietzsche posited that the only “philosophy” to ever do was in the realm of value and psychology, and, of course, the world-fucking contingencies they produce (Deleuze-Guattari, Land, et. al).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 16:09:01 2019 No.14331055 >>14305175 This is a total brainlet question. If you ever used numbers to do literally anything the answer would be obvious on an intuitive level.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 16:38:25 2019 No.14331255

>>14327707
Our original choices for definitions were made to give rise to a notion of number *which corresponds to physical perception*. That part is hugely important to where our counting numbers come from, that it has that physical correspondence. That's why it's not arbitrary.

>yes you can, you just change base or scale. You say you have one rock, I say you have 6 moles of atoms.
You're still using the same basic counting numbers. Counting dozens of eggs is the same as counting eggs, really. Not really an objection.

>you keep saying 'number', but your idea of number is inconsistent. You say "counting numbers" but then you can't use counting numbers (i.e. integers) for division (your square example). You need rational numbers.
That's not at all true. There is no universal notion of division on integers, but one can easily define a|b if there exists an integer c such that ac=b. This is page 2 of a number theory textbook, anon.

>But then if you are in the domain of complex numbers, the easy ordering and addition of integers doesn't apply so it turns out your "basic counting numbers" actually don't describe reality, they just superficially described a narrow set of problems given certain conditions.
No, counting numbers are just discrete from complex numbers. They're different systems we use for different things. Has no bearing on the correspondence between physical objects and counting numbers.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 16:44:59 2019 No.14331290

>>14327854
You're missing the point I think. You don't need Peano arithmetic to get basic arithmetic. Peano arithmetic is a much more complicated formalization in terms of set theory.

A kindergartener learns arithmetic just fine without such formalization. Peano arithmetic is quite literally unnecessary for anyone not interested in higher mathematics.

You dont teach kindergarteners how to count by starting with axioms, and until you accept this fundamental reality that higher mathematics is only giving ground to what we already believe to be true, you will be lost.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:17:08 2019 No.14331438 >>14331290 That just doesn't follow. Most axioms are basic and can be intuited easily. Just because you dont have to teach axioms to teach at all doesn't mean they arent properly foundational

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:18:14 2019 No.14332690

>>14331438
That's a bold assertion, we have no way of knowing if there's even a formulation of axiomatic set theory which is even non contradictory, yet you presume basically every rule or principle a person acts on is axiomatic.

I think you're using axiom too loosely and are seeing them where they don't really exist.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:32:25 2019 No.14332770

>>14332690
>presume basically every rule or principle a person acts on is axiomatic
Never said this. I said that discovering the underlying principles of something we intuitively grasp isnt just a cope. Its like saying we invented orbit to explain our preconceived belief in orbit

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:37:28 2019 No.14332796 >>14305175 Define exist. However, I think that if we met an alien civilization, except for symbols and counting systems, we would use the same mathematics i.e entailing that mathematics is universal and not anthropocentric.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:43:15 2019 No.14332830 >>14305175 numbers are abstract things that only exist in our minds but they represent real concepts in nature

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:02:56 2019 No.14333529
File: 128 KB, 800x600, The-Numbers-of-Fibonacci-and-Nature-2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14305239
the fibonacci sequence is the addition of the 2 parts before it, which doesnt really equate to numbers per say
plus the inner parts of these just get nice and cozy with high contact with the others

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:24:23 2019 No.14333621

>>14333529
i think it might have to do with nature simply trying to find out how to squeeze as many "things" in as possible, while keeping everything around a center point, circular, and gradually making it bigger as it goes out, as the smaller ones in the center are younger
so that means, theoretically, this might be the best way to fit anything in such a pattern around a center point

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:45:19 2019 No.14333718 >>14305209 sEqUeNcE

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:48:53 2019 No.14333733 >>14306783 How could you fuck up such a beautiful quote so awfully

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature