Do numbers and math actually exist outside of human minds and separate from the world? What's the verdict?

Do numbers and math actually exist outside of human minds and separate from the world? What's the verdict?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. If there are three rocks on the ground, there are still three rocks there regardless of whether anyone is present to observe them or not.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's still not proof that "threeness" or "numberness" actually "exists".

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it is, I can observe it just as clearly as the rocks themselves. Even if you think it's only in my head, it's still there.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it's real in my mind

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the implication here, that the mind isn't real?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Is the number in the room with us right now?

            [...]
            Yes, rock(s) exists outside of the mind, the question is about numbers though.

            Where do you draw the line between the rock and not-the-rock? If you zoomed in to the level where you could see the atoms, not only would you be unable to see the difference between the rock and the ground, you would also be unable to see the rock itself beyond a cluster of atoms.
            It is only to our human ideas of rockness that you see the rock, and from that you see there are three rocks.

            If you broke one of the rocks in half, have you increased the number of rocks or is it the same rock in multiple parts? If you broke the rock into all of its inidividual atoms, is it still the rock at all?

            There is no difference between the concept of a rock and the number 3. They are equally valid observations of the external world. Light enters our eyeballs and a rational brain connected to it concludes there are 3 rocks. This happens whether it is a Chinese brain or a white brain or a martian brain.

            pic related was just a thought experiment and if you take it literally you are peak midwit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            show me 3

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is 3 rock but if i close my eyes i cant see them WHAT NOW ANON?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is 3 rock but if i close my eyes i cant see them WHAT NOW ANON?
            Somebody that isn't you still has their eyes open and they can still see the rocks...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What rocks? I dont see any rocks. Theres just pixels on the screen... Lets see... its an image file encoded in IP packets that was decoded by my device according to a standard pattern. Then the decoded data was read by a program and lit up particular LEDs according to the data...

            Hm... it appears by your logic, there is no data, there are no words, there is no IQfy, and there are no games

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, what did you just say?
            Those random pixels on the screen obviously don't mean anything.
            You're talking to the empty subjective void moron anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Im saying that language and data exist on the same "plane" as numbers and math do. To deny numbers would be to deny meaning, language, and data.

            Its ironic to do so on a website.

            But what are you saying about a subjective void?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree with you anon. I'm just using their own dumb argument.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Pic
            The people in the cave have no reason to believing in an other existence apart from the shadows on the wall. The only way to become aware is if you could step outside the cave which for us means seeing the "other reality" which we can't do so why believe it exists?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Is the number in the room with us right now?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where do you draw the line between the rock and not-the-rock? If you zoomed in to the level where you could see the atoms, not only would you be unable to see the difference between the rock and the ground, you would also be unable to see the rock itself beyond a cluster of atoms.
          It is only to our human ideas of rockness that you see the rock, and from that you see there are three rocks.

          If you broke one of the rocks in half, have you increased the number of rocks or is it the same rock in multiple parts? If you broke the rock into all of its inidividual atoms, is it still the rock at all?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay say it was three atoms, then. It's three atoms. If you held up your index, middle finger and ring finger, that is the same amount of fingers you are holding up as atoms that there are.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it is. If there are three rocks, there just ARE three rocks even if there was no living being in the universe to verify as much. In this scenario, the very qualifying factor here is that they are rocks and there are three of them. Earth has one moon. It had one moon when there was nobody there to count it. Numbers on some level are just descriptors of reality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No because irrational numbers exist. There's no counting system that can express both the positive integers AND the irrational numbers as whole numbers. That's proof the properties of the universe we live in weren't intended to be "counted".

          How do the "circle is not a polygon" mathematicians cope with the fact that Planck units exist (the pixels of the universe)? If you were to zoom into any circle on a microscopic scale you would see line segments and corners. There's not actually such thing as the "infinitesimal". Sorry Mr. Set Theory but circles aren't Platonic. They're nominal and always have been. Physics > Math.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you were to zoom into any circle on a microscopic scale you would see line segments and corners.
            are you moronic

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's probably one of those morons who thinks that a low-res .jpg image of a circle displayed on an LCD monitor or a poorly-drawn circular object on a piece of paper is the same as the geometric shape of a circle.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >circles aren't real
            what to much reading does to a mf

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No. Math is just an abstraction of reality. Math doesn’t exist in reality. Only as a concept. Physics is not just applied math. Math works without any reference to reality, which is why Theologians loved it. You can create these perfect concepts in your mind, But they don’t work in reality.

          What if a rock over time fused with another rock on the beach? What if a rock contained another perfectly encapsulated rock inside it? What if a rock has a seamless crack and is actually 2 rocks? If you are planning to move the rocks, that might suddenly be a problem. If the structural integrity of the rocks are important, because you use them to build things with, maybe the architect rejects them in the basis of that, giving you less rocks in your storage than you accounted for.

          Math is internally consistent, but only an abstraction of reality. If you only account the moon affecting the tides, but not mars, because you simply didn’t know about that, then your model explaining the tides isn’t as accurate as it can be. Math only helps to describe reality better, but it’s not reality itself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes it is, I can observe it just as clearly as the rocks themselves. Even if you think it's only in my head, it's still there.

      Yes, rock(s) exists outside of the mind, the question is about numbers though.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Buddhists would say everything is mind.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes, rock(s) exists outside of the mind, the question is about numbers though.
        No it isn't about the numbers. You could use any bloody system of communication to describe the same thing but there are still exactly three rocks there on ground.
        Holy shit you're a moron.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody knows, but afaik mathematical platonism is taken more seriously than other forms of platonisn, even outside of the field of philosophy.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty obvious that math is simply a mental abstraction of reality. A single tree as an example of being is real, which to your mind reads as one, which itself is real, but the latter reality is only possible because you have the mind to perceive it. Same as time with respect to change or geometry to space. Your confusion may stem from the fact that measurement in the modern era has produced technology which you may take to be a form of absolute power over reality. But it is mere measurement and the absolute nature of that power mere illusion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      41% of philosophers are nominalists. 38% are platonists. The rest are undecided/other.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >41% of philosophers are nominalists
        >41%
        I didn't know the philosophy community had so many ackeroons

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The ackeroon metaphysics is thomist hylomorphism.
          >the accidents are male but the essence is female

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unironically yes. Aristotelianism is just one step away from nominalism. Go Platonism or go troonyism.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, the confusion stems from the fact that mathematical truths such as 2+2=4 are absolutely true, regardless of time and space. And yes, I agree that these are eternally true, but again, these truths only exists in rational minds. No mind, no 2+2=4, as a mathematical fact, not as any fact of nature, which would still always hold if, say, two birds flew to meet two other birds in a tree in a forest with no one to see them, making four birds in a tree.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Animals actually have that concept, so i would say yes, it does actually exist outside of human minds:
    >Ants were shown to be able to count up to 20 and add and subtract numbers within 5.[28][29] In highly social species such as red wood ants scouting individuals can transfer to foragers the information about the number of branches of a special “counting maze” they had to go to in order to obtain syrup. The findings concerning number sense in ants are based on comparisons of duration of information contacts between scouts and foragers which preceded successful trips by the foraging teams. Similar to some archaic human languages, the length of the code of a given number in ants’ communication is proportional to its value. In experiments in which the bait appeared on different branches with different frequencies, the ants used simple additions and subtractions to optimize their messages.
    >Wild rodents
    >Striped field mice (Apodemus agrarius) demonstrated a sense of number consistent with precise relative-quantity judgment: some of these mice exhibit high accuracy in discriminating between quantities that differ only by one. The latter include both small (such as 2 versus 3) and relatively large (such as 5 versus 6, and 8 versus 9) quantities of elements.[30]

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even some plants have it:
    >Venus flytrap

    >A closing trap
    The Venus flytrap can count to two and five in order to trap and then digest its prey.[1][2]

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No because irrational numbers exist. There's no counting system that can express both the positive integers AND the irrational numbers as whole numbers. That's proof the properties of the universe we live in weren't intended to be "counted".

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, if not bridges wouldn't work.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >replies
    Nominalism is correct though. Obviously there isn't some other world with floating numbers in it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Obviously there isn't some other world with floating numbers in it.
      There is, nominalism being false, and that world is called the human mind.
      The Brain — is wider than the Sky —
      For — put them side by side —
      The one the other will contain
      With ease — and You — beside —

      The Brain is deeper than the sea —
      For — hold them — Blue to Blue —
      The one the other will absorb —
      As Sponges — Buckets — do —

      The Brain is just the weight of God —
      For — Heft them — Pound for Pound —
      And they will differ — if they do —
      As Syllable from Sound —

      --Emily Dickinson

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your mind isn't an independent reality. You are trying to convince me platonism is true by presupposing platonism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          One doesn't have to make the claim that minds are reality independent to show that mathematical truths are independent of reality. 2+2 will always equal 4 in any possible reality.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The question "was math created or discovered" is basically the question of whether Plato or Aristotle is right. Plato would have said math was discovered and exists metaphysically. Aristotle (his student) would have disagreed and said it was simply a creation of the human mind, pointing to the lack of observable evidence as reason enough to justify a lack of belief.

    Personally I side with Plato. I just feel like there has to be some metaphysics behind physics.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aristotle was a realist like Plato. Just mote moderate.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Interesting, thanks for the clarification. Would you say that the amount of physicalism/reductionism we see in the world today, especially among the left, falls into the category of extreme nominalism?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >left
          >reductionism

          those homosexuals believe in magic though. at least in the realm of sex and why incels are alone

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the left believes in magic? I have to disagree with that. I think the left is the ifrickinglovescience.com crowd that denies anything paranormal, aliens, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the left believes in magic? I have to disagree with that. I think the left is the ifrickinglovescience.com crowd that denies anything paranormal, aliens, etc

            The left embrace aliens, paranormal events and religions though...
            The only difference being that they have a love/hate relationship with Christianity. They love Christianity because Christianity is pro-race mixing. They hate Christianity because many Leftists are israelites.
            Lysenkoism in the USSR as an example was a leftist rejection of Darwinism that caused famines.
            Leftists only approve of science if it doesn't contradict with any of their core tenant beliefs. Same with most religions.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does it make a difference?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How can something be 1 chair, yet that chair is composed of more than one atom? Because it's in your head.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did Pythagoras exist?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Which number system and to which complexity?
    I'd say numbers in the form we use them are just a means to standardise, hence they only exist inside of humans minds. Maths is just a means to describe reality.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *