Numbers don't represent real things, only various degrees of approximation of real things?
Define "real."
>>16980780A circle
>>16980781>Numbers don't represent [a circle] things, only various degrees of approximation of [a circle] things?
>>16980781>>16980782Is a circle "real?" Or is it an ideal? >>16980780How about something like.. "things that exist in the physical world, independent of minds to perceive it."
>>16980786I have seen plenty of circles in my life I even touched some of them What is the number for circle?
>>16980786>things that exist in the physical world, independent of minds to perceive itSure. Then numbers can be used to represent quantities. If you have 3 apples, then that is a representation of the real quantity of apples you have. Apples are discreet units so no approximation required.
>>16980791But apples are not identical and each apple can be modified to verifying degrees without loosing its identity.>>16980788But no circle in the physical world is a mathematically perfect circle, right?
>>16980793So the answer is no, I don't have a number for circle
>>16980795Just for certain properties of circles?
>>16980793>But apples are not identicalNot relevant. As long as the identity of "apple" is retained then an apple remains an apple. And if you have 3 of them, even if they're different in every way which doesn't negate the identity, then 3 is a representation of the real quantity of apple you have.If the scope of this thread is to go as far as "do these objects even have the 'apple' identity without human perception assigning that identity to them?" then the number discussion is an irrelevant detour to what you're actually trying to get at. You'd be talking about social constructivism.
>>16980800So really there are 3 things:>independent physical entities>human categorizations of physical things>mathematical descriptions Do mathematical descriptions only directly apply to the second thing?
>>16980803Depends how legitimate you see the distinction between the first two things as being. The second thing is the only thing any aspect of human language applies to. We categorize things specifically to be able to construct useful descriptions of those things. You can't discuss a thing beyond the categories we assign to them because there is no discussion to be had. To describe it is to categorize it.In this sense, "the physical entity" is "the description."All of that may sound like sophistry, because it kinda is, but the point is that this very quickly stops being about the nature of reality when you attempt to distinguish between "reality" and "our description of it." It becomes a mess of word play.
>>16980799It is a real number?
>>16980744the tree on the right looks lika a cat
>>16980817>Depends how legitimate you see the distinction between the first two things as being.They are kind of themselves examples of the second thing (human categorizations, not of physical things, but conceptual things). >You can't discuss a thing beyond the categories we assign to them because there is no discussion to be had. To describe it is to categorize it.Are there any categorizations of physical things that don't become.. fuzzy around the edges/don't have clear boundaries when you try to zoom in on the edges ?
>>16980835You're missing the point entirely.
>>16980840You mean that it's a pointless topic because you just end up arguing semantics endlessly?
>>16980844Bingo.Even if not "pointless," it's certainly neither science nor math.
>>16980744Irrelevant, time-wasting question that goes away when you stop thinking in terms of "things" and start thinking in terms of relationships.
>>16980858Fair enough.So.. I guess.. math ultimately applies to this semantic quagmire? >>16980861Example?
>>16980871>Example?Suppose you want to teach a kid what numbers are. Where do you start? You teach him how to count. And how do you do that? By example: you count things. Given a sufficient number and variety of examples, the kid realizes realize counting isn't about specific things but how 1 relates to 2, how 2 relates to 3 and so on. Same thing goes for arithmetic: when you demonstrate that two apples "plus" two apples is indeed four apples, you're demonstrating how 2 relates to 4. You're not showing the kid an actual number at any point, only examples of quantitative relationships in real life that even a child can perceive.
>>16980744>Numbers don't represent real thingsthey do represent real things. learn what "represent" means and how that representation works, retard.
>>16980916>they do represent real thingsWrong.
>>16980919go grab 2 apples and tell me they aren't represented by the number 2.btw, words represent real things too. or you think apples are the same as the word "apple"?RETARD
>>16980923>go grab 2 apples and tell me they aren't represented by the number 2.They aren't represented by the number 2. You were chimping out at OP not knowing what representation means but now it's obvious you were projecting.
>>16980925they are: the set "2 apples" have a characteristic: they are 2 elements. there is no degree on that: you can check by grabbing one apple with each hand (assuming you have both of your hands, of course). that doesn't mean the number 2 describes the apples completely.those apples, just like many other pairs of things, can be represented, in a sense, by the number 2.gravity is also a real thing, and can be represented by a formula (or by a drawing of a gravitational field, or whatever). but gravity isn't an object, and you can't see a formula when your body is affected by gravity either.numbers do represent real things. they can describe some characteristics of real things. they aren't the real things, but help explain them, the way they interact with other things and so on. they are yet another symbol (like emojis, drawings, words, ...) that reference to a thing (which doesn't even have to be a tangible object).
>>16980937>barely coherent word saladSorry, anon. They taught you wrong. Numbers aren't about apples.
>>16980744they represent real things but the representations are approximations in a separate space
>>16980744>posts thumbnail
>>169809232 doesn't represent the apples themselves, dumdum. it represents the quantity of apples
>>16980949I said the 2 represents a couple of apples.I'm sorry you guys are too retarded to read.
>>16980943Correct, and that space is a mental hilbert space; a virtualization. 2 apples, for example are 2 pieces of fruit from the whole of an apple tree.You can quarter each of the apples, but each quadrant of each apple cannot be reduced to constitute the apple tree in reality, despite the flesh of the fruit containing the DNA of the apple tree which produced them.Mathematics is a mental abstraction, thus it is not "real" in the physical sense that you can hold a number free from its association towards what the abstract is being applied to.
>>16980955Why is it a hilbert space?
>>16980969A virtual mental landscape that we can apply an exotic quadratics coordinate system to, usually denoting an axis for imaginary numbers
>>16980995Just say that you don't know what a hilbert space is
>>16980969Hilbert claimed it first and built his hotel there and now everyone who tries to understand mathematics is cursed to move into the hotel after they die and argue with other mathematicians about who sleeps in which room.
>>16980744That cougar is hissing, snarling, or growling.
>>16980951>I said the 2 represents a couple of apples.it doesn't do that, it only represents the quantity
>>16981004You're arguing that a structural cognitive process is "owned by physics" as if physics, itself, generated it. It's retarded logic. Explain physics without stealing from the domains of math, language, and cognition dumbass.
>>16980861You can make a similar statement of relationship too though so it's back to square one
>>16981127>You can make a similar statement of relationship too though so it's back to square oneNot really, because relationships aren't things. They're implicit. They're between things. If I assert the reality of an object, you expect me to be able to point it out as something distinctly incarnate out there in the world. If I assert the reality of a relationship, you only expect me to point out real objects that relate to each other in that way.
>>16981020what is quantity in the context of a conversation about "real things"?
>>16981248you tell me. you're the one who thinks it's real
>>16981267I say it's real that you need to learn to read.
>>16981299what is quantity in the context of a conversation about "real things"?
>>16981301if you are talking about real things, and these things are a couple of apples you have in your hands, or gravity, or whatever... do you not use numbers and formulas?you can even represent qualities as numbers in order to model things, measure and compare them or w/e.
>>16981330you didn't answer the question
Are thoughts real?
>>16981301>>16981338depends on the conversation. the context makes the number represent one thing or another.and I just told you that numbers are not only used to represent things themselves, or only quantities.wtf are you even arguing about now? you didn't get my point, and you are now trying to use my argument against me, even though you didn't get my point.this is getting tiring.
>>16981390Do you ever think about Our Lord and Savior?
>>16981395ok, so you asked me a question that you can't even answer yourself despite it being based on your retarded and wrong worldview, that has nothing to do with mine
>>16981399As a cannibal of the soul that peers out every corner, growing more ravenous with every denial.
>>16981411Maybe 7 is associated with divinity because 7 8 9.
>>16981407whatever m8. you win. I guess numbers can't really represent things, be them tangible or abstract.neither can emojis or paintings or pics, I suppose.
>>16981449>I guess numbers can't really represent things, be them tangible or abstract.i explained to you that they represent quantities but your context window is too short
>>16981330You arent doing formulas when you're catching a football on the run, but you are doing physics in real time.Someone could record the entire scene and draft formulas to recreate the scenario virtually, but those for ulas had nothing to do with the real-time decision making that went into the successful coordination.
>>16981461>>16981469see those two in the pic?did I just not point to things that can be represented by the number 2 in the statement above?numbers can be used to represent many things, even in non-technical contexts.>>16981469I don't think you got my point at all. it doesn't matter if you aren't doing formulas while running. this isn't even the topic. tried learning basic logic?my point is that numbers can help you represent (describe, calculate, compare, ...) reality, be it things, or qualities, or quantities, or relationships, or... sometimes to the point of making things obvious.
>>16981714>did I just not point to things that can be represented by the number 2no, you didn't. the number 2 does not imply tits
>>16981788you obviously understood, and then denied that fact right in the same sentence lmao
>>16981843i understood that you're making the same mistake again, like the brown jeet that you are, of failing to differentiate between the quantity of the things and the things themselves
>>16981999>I'm mad bawwwHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAok bro, whatever. keep arguing for the sake of arguing.>/sci/ - Science & Math
>>16982006maybe i would be slightly mad if i thought you were white but i realized you were brown like 3 posts in so i had no expectations
>>16981714Yeah and I can stand at a pool table and talk about the physics of the shot I'm going to take for an hour while your beer gets warm, and then miss at doing the physics I'm describing, dumbass
>>16982011>>16982015you people are funny, in a sad way.
>you people are funny, in a sad way.
>>16980786Numbers are absolutely real, youre being chased by 3 dire wolves, you throw a rock hitting one and killing it and scaring the other 2 away leaving 1 dead, how can you say this only exists with human mind its absolute values
>>16980781>a...So you have assume the number 1 is real to even define something else to be real?>>169807881 circle is the number of a circle.>>16980788No, you have seen rounded things that you approximated to be actual circles.>>16980795Wrong the answer that circle is 1 circle.
>>16980791>Apples are discreet unitsnope
>>169822921, 1 is approximately 1, 1, but there are shapes and animations that are approximately 1. The point is, there are many representations of 1 that the symbol 1 doesn't complete 1-knowledge, it is approximately 1, 1.
>>16980791>apples>real
>>16982688We're not talking about apples on the complex plane now, are we?
