Do numbers exist? - Page 2

Magic_Man · #11 10-27-2006, 01:59 AM

The words we use to describe them are certainly a man-made concept, but are the numbers themselves? I've been thinking a lot about this lately, coincidentally. I was wondering what intelligent alien civilizations' math would look like. I have to assume that every intelligent creature would "discover" numbers eventually, and that they'd know about pi, e, the pythagorean theorem, and lots of other things familiar to us. The concept of there being 1 or something, or 2 of something, or 5298 or something, is independent of who/what is thinking about it.

FortunaMaximus · #12 10-27-2006, 02:02 AM

Don't be so sure.

They'd discover the 0, 1, few, many, but the interpretations can and will be drastically variant.

Silicates might perceive a count along the color spectrum, for instance. Or taste by atomic masses.

Yeah.

Lestat · #13 10-27-2006, 02:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The words we use to describe them are certainly a man-made concept, but are the numbers themselves? I've been thinking a lot about this lately, coincidentally. I was wondering what intelligent alien civilizations' math would look like. I have to assume that every intelligent creature would "discover" numbers eventually, and that they'd know about pi, e, the pythagorean theorem, and lots of other things familiar to us. The concept of there being 1 or something, or 2 of something, or 5298 or something, is independent of who/what is thinking about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why can't the same be said for language? Just as every experience and thing can be broken down into words, so too can everything be broken down into math. If an intelligent alien saw a quasar, he would somehow be able to describe what he saw, which may be the exact same thing as you saw and describe to me. In other words, what happened - happened. Same for the alien as you. So if he saw 3 stars, why wouldn't "3" exist for him (whatever he calls it), the same as for you? In other words, the number "3" must exist, same as the 3 stars exist.

btw- this is way out of my realm. I'm terrible with numbers and just spewing thoughts. Don't anyone take me seriously when it comes to math.

aeest400 · #14 10-27-2006, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Numbers (1,2,3,4) are just constructs of language. That which they represent, that is, logical operators (yes/no) are the cornerstone of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even in the ballpark.

David Sklansky · #15 10-27-2006, 03:04 AM

Are you aware that you have asked the only question that mathmeticians all debate?

bunny · #16 10-27-2006, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware that you have asked the only question that mathmeticians all debate?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I remember debating it in the tea-room at lunch. I knew it was widespread, didnt know it was universal. What's your opinion?

bunny · #17 10-27-2006, 03:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They are purely constructs of language, denoting relationships between physical things.

They will go away when we'll go away.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]
If we look back in time to before intelligence existed (ie rotations of proto-galaxies or somesuch) they followed things like the inverse square law. Doesnt it seem like numbers existed then, even though nobody was around to think of them? Why should the numbers go away when we do (which also seems to contradict the timeless, eternal comment you made?) I cant see why they are dependant on us - Pythagoras' theorem was true before anyone thought of it.

bunny · #18 10-27-2006, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The words we use to describe them are certainly a man-made concept, but are the numbers themselves? I've been thinking a lot about this lately, coincidentally. I was wondering what intelligent alien civilizations' math would look like. I have to assume that every intelligent creature would "discover" numbers eventually, and that they'd know about pi, e, the pythagorean theorem, and lots of other things familiar to us. The concept of there being 1 or something, or 2 of something, or 5298 or something, is independent of who/what is thinking about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the heart of my pondering too. The maths that different cultures came up with had different standards of proof, different focuses and axioms/areas of investigation. But they were all consistent.

When you actually do mathematics it doesnt seem like you have any choice. You choose your axioms and definitions, obviously, but the consequences of that are not up to you - after that it feels like you are discovering properties about real objects.

The various materialist philosophies of mathematics struggle with this, it seems to me.

bunny · #19 10-27-2006, 03:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it seems the only thing I still find mysterious.

[/ QUOTE ]

amazing

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrug* Perhaps I should be clear that there's a lot of stuff that I realise I dont know how it works - but not much that actually baffles me as to how it could possibly be. Maths and knowledge of maths by physical beings is a mystery I have no handle on at all.

bunny · #20 10-27-2006, 03:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But why can't the same be said for language? Just as every experience and thing can be broken down into words, so too can everything be broken down into math. If an intelligent alien saw a quasar, he would somehow be able to describe what he saw, which may be the exact same thing as you saw and describe to me. In other words, what happened - happened. Same for the alien as you. So if he saw 3 stars, why wouldn't "3" exist for him (whatever he calls it), the same as for you? In other words, the number "3" must exist, same as the 3 stars exist.

btw- this is way out of my realm. I'm terrible with numbers and just spewing thoughts. Don't anyone take me seriously when it comes to math.

[/ QUOTE ]
There seems a difference between language and maths to me. Language seems arbitrary and not just in the obvious way of which sounds are connected to which concepts, etc. I mean more fundamentally in that we didnt have to use nouns, verbs, etc - it's just how we chose to do it. We had no such choice with whether 28 is a perfect number though - once we choose to look at perfect numbers (ie define the term) we see that 28 is perfect and 30 isnt.

PS - I am aware, perhaps even hoping, that the deficiency may well be in my powers of conception - perhaps they are fundamentally the same thing. All I can say is it doesnt seem like it if you do any real maths.