Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post Reply
User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by FBM » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:18 am

mistermack wrote:
FBM wrote:I'm pretty sure things have been observed, but not so sure numbers themselves ever have. :ask:
Depends what you mean by ''exist'' then. Physical things exist. And they have properties.
Do properties ''exist'' ? I think they do. If they don't exist, they can't cause change.
We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effect. It's the same with numbers. We don't observe the numbers, we observe their effects.
Properties are dynamic phenomena. Not so sure about numbers. We can imagine unicorns and gods and whatnot, maybe numbers are just a very useful fiction. I'm not convinced one way or the other about the OP. I haven't seen anything conclusive here yet.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60810
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:07 am

mistermack wrote:
FBM wrote:I'm pretty sure things have been observed, but not so sure numbers themselves ever have. :ask:
Depends what you mean by ''exist'' then. Physical things exist. And they have properties.
Do properties ''exist'' ? I think they do. If they don't exist, they can't cause change.
We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effect. It's the same with numbers. We don't observe the numbers, we observe their effects.
Gravity is a physical phenomenon. Numbers aren't.

One one hand, I still think numbers are a manifestation of our propensity to pattern match and categorise. So in that regard they have no set physical value. But on the other hand, numbers in physics ARE representing something physical. So even though we could call our units metres or flugals, such that there are 4 x 10-13 metres, or 7.46 x 10-9 flugals, in between molecules in ice, they both represent the same thing. That sort of implies that there are such things as numbers. How else could we represent the physical world without numbers?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74202
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by JimC » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:15 am

mistermack wrote:
JimC wrote: They can also be thought of as a property of how matter is organised in our particular Universe, into a series of discrete, separate entities, at many levels, that allow for a set theory containing discrete elements.

One could imagine a very different universe, perhaps only containing classical energy fields, with no quantum effects, where all aspects of physical reality change absolutely smoothly in magnitude and direction; no steps, no jumps, no discrete entities. If an intelligent alien form of life evolved in such conditions, it would have no concept of integers at all - it would be interesting to speculate on what aspects of mathematical theory we would have in common (calculus?), and what would be unique to each of us...
In that context, you say absolutely, but you mean ''infinitely''. Yes?
That's not actually as easy as it sounds, to imagine. An actual infinity is supposed to be impossible in the physical world. Which is why quantum jumps make sense.
Yes, it's certainly not how our Universe works, so I'm being speculative about the possibility that universes with any arbitrary physical laws are "possible", more to illustrate the point that discrete jumps and entities are built in to our Universe from the ground up...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by FBM » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:22 am

Is a perceived object a singular entity with inherent "one-nature" to which the human mind responds? Not sure how it could be, because a rock or chair or whatever is divisible into component parts, so "one-ness" doesn't seem to be inherent in any compounded entity.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74202
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by JimC » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:03 am

FBM wrote:Is a perceived object a singular entity with inherent "one-nature" to which the human mind responds? Not sure how it could be, because a rock or chair or whatever is divisible into component parts, so "one-ness" doesn't seem to be inherent in any compounded entity.
Go down far enough, and "oneness" is inherent in the atomic nature of matter. There really are discrete entities in matter, at many levels. My earlier point was speculating that this doesn't have to be, in an alternative reality where existence is smoothly "smeared".

Not in this universe, however...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by FBM » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:16 am

But we don't perceive subatomic particles. We perceive compounded objects and assign them discrete singularity...erroneously. That singularity is an illusion of limited perspective, no? Convenient and useful, but neither convenience nor utility is evidence for truth... ;)

Edit:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
There are no particles, there are only fields

Art Hobson
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2012 (v1), last revised 29 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying it's also true of non-relativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus the Schroedinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The field for an electron is the electron; each electron extends over both slits in the 2-slit experiment and spreads over the entire pattern; and quantum physics is about interactions of microscopic systems with the macroscopic world rather than just about measurements. It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public. This article reviews classical and quantum fields, the 2-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field theories.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:19 am

JimC wrote:
FBM wrote:Is a perceived object a singular entity with inherent "one-nature" to which the human mind responds? Not sure how it could be, because a rock or chair or whatever is divisible into component parts, so "one-ness" doesn't seem to be inherent in any compounded entity.
Go down far enough, and "oneness" is inherent in the atomic nature of matter. There really are discrete entities in matter, at many levels. My earlier point was speculating that this doesn't have to be, in an alternative reality where existence is smoothly "smeared".

Not in this universe, however...
There are also definite, quantum properties of fundamental properties that have specific, numerical values - spin is the most obvious. All bosons have integer spin. All fermions have integer +1/2 spin. Also, electromagnetic charge occurs in discrete values. Up-type quarks have charge +2/3, down-type quarks have charge -1/3, electrons (and their heavier cousins) have charge -1.

These numbers are not arbitrary - they are a very real part of how everything is made.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Azathoth
blind idiot god
blind idiot god
Posts: 9418
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by Azathoth » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:03 am

Dafuq? When did 1/2 become an integer. Stupid quantum weirdness

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Code: Select all

// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis 
   $str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:15 am

Azathoth wrote:Dafuq? When did 1/2 become an integer. Stupid quantum weirdness
Where did I say it was? :dunno:

Spin is either integer or integer+1/2, ie. {0, ±1, ±2, etc.} or {±1/2, ±3/2, ±5/2, etc.}

Charge is either 0, ±1, ±1/3 or ±2/3.

Other quantum quantities have similar sets of values.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Azathoth
blind idiot god
blind idiot god
Posts: 9418
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by Azathoth » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:20 am

Aah don't mind me. Little bit dunk and gone from late to early

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Code: Select all

// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis 
   $str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74202
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by JimC » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:32 am

FBM wrote:

We perceive compounded objects and assign them discrete singularity...erroneously. That singularity is an illusion of limited perspective, no? Convenient and useful, but neither convenience nor utility is evidence for truth...
In many cases, I think our perceptions are straightforwardly correct. There are many clear-cut instances in the material world where things, often living things, come as single, clearly separate entities. One fish doesn't blur into another fish, nor does one pebble smear into another...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60810
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:51 am

That's just a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by FBM » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:55 am

JimC wrote:
FBM wrote:

We perceive compounded objects and assign them discrete singularity...erroneously. That singularity is an illusion of limited perspective, no? Convenient and useful, but neither convenience nor utility is evidence for truth...
In many cases, I think our perceptions are straightforwardly correct. There are many clear-cut instances in the material world where things, often living things, come as single, clearly separate entities. One fish doesn't blur into another fish, nor does one pebble smear into another...
But fishies are made of millions of cells, which are made of etc, etc. At the smallest scale, you have fields, not little fundamental ball bearing-like things. According to them people wot I linked to above, anyway. I haven't looked. :hehe:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by FBM » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:55 am

rEvolutionist wrote:That's just a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Maybe. That depends on how you look at it.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74202
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

Post by JimC » Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:52 am

FBM wrote:
JimC wrote:
FBM wrote:

We perceive compounded objects and assign them discrete singularity...erroneously. That singularity is an illusion of limited perspective, no? Convenient and useful, but neither convenience nor utility is evidence for truth...
In many cases, I think our perceptions are straightforwardly correct. There are many clear-cut instances in the material world where things, often living things, come as single, clearly separate entities. One fish doesn't blur into another fish, nor does one pebble smear into another...
But fishies are made of millions of cells, which are made of etc, etc. At the smallest scale, you have fields, not little fundamental ball bearing-like things. According to them people wot I linked to above, anyway. I haven't looked. :hehe:
Sure - objects are compound, complex, and when we apply reductionist techniques, aspects of their nature change according to the scale at which we wish to observe. Fascinating, interesting, scientifically important and sometimes confusing in terms of language used to describe the phenomena...

None of which changes the fact that I, a computer, or an alien can simply and easily count how many discrete fishes exist at any one time in a given aquarium...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests