Log In
Forum
Topic RSS
12:00 pm
April 20, 2011
Offline
"at1with0" wrote: I don't know if this answers your questions but numbers still exist (or don't exist) regardless of whether or not there are things to count.
How do you differentiate between things to count and numbers?
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
7:10 pm
April 9, 2009
Offline
"khanster" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]I don't know if this answers your questions but numbers still exist (or don't exist) regardless of whether or not there are things to count.
If there are things to count then numbers must exist.
Any discernible difference between "things" is a number.
There are different concepts (e.g., triangles and circles) therefore numbers exist. hehe
Reality exists implies that the number 1 exists for in that scenario, at least one thing exists.
Then 2 exists because "reality exists" and ""reality exists" is true" are two true statements.
Similarly, all natural numbers exist.
It takes some effort but all numbers can be defined in terms of natural numbers.
However, to say that there is a SET of all natural numbers can not be proved it must be assumed (axiom of infinity).
"DIss0n80r" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]I don't know if this answers your questions but numbers still exist (or don't exist) regardless of whether or not there are things to count.
How do you differentiate between things to count and numbers?
It would seem to be better that we reduce the number of undefined primitive notions to a minimum; therefore, let's stick with sets being that one undefined notion.
Natural numbers are defined (Or can be defined) in terms of sets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nu ... set_theory
In this way, natural numbers are viewed as specific sets.
To answer your question, not all things are sets but numbers, in this line of thought, are sets thus things to count and numbers are entirely different categories of real.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
7:11 am
September 19, 2009
Offline
"at1with0" wrote:
There are different concepts (e.g., triangles and circles) therefore numbers exist. hehe
Reality exists implies that the number 1 exists for in that scenario, at least one thing exists.Then 2 exists because "reality exists" and ""reality exists" is true" are two true statements.
Similarly, all natural numbers exist.
It takes some effort but all numbers can be defined in terms of natural numbers.
However, to say that there is a SET of all natural numbers can not be proved it must be assumed (axiom of infinity).
:clap: :clap: :clap:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4024v1.pdf
So here is the crux of my argument. If you believe
in an external reality independent of humans, then you
must also believe in what I call the mathematical universe
hypothesis: that our physical reality is a mathematical
structure. In other words, we all live in a gigantic
mathematical object— one that is more elaborate than a
dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects
with intimidating names like Calabi-Yau manifolds,
tensor bundles and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s
most advanced theories. Everything in our world
is purely mathematical — including you.
7:46 am
April 20, 2011
Offline
What does it mean for you to be a mathematical object?
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
8:31 am
September 19, 2009
Offline
"DIss0n80r" wrote: What does it mean for you to be a mathematical object?
[Image Can Not Be Found]
12:04 pm
April 20, 2011
Offline
Elaborate.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
4:58 pm
April 9, 2009
Offline
The path of a projectile is a mathematical object.
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Of course, the mathematical objects isomorphic to US are far more complex.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
8:25 am
September 19, 2009
Offline
As a simplistic analogy, say we have a perception of self = 1 dimension
a perception of perspective of other than self = 2nd dimension
a perception of duration which gives depth, which some might call "time" = 3rd dimension
A two dimensional holographic encoding plus time gives three dimensions.
Long live the Droids :clap:
1 Guest(s)
