• Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    A number caused my wife to become angry at me? It seems like I should have a talk with that number, and I should tell it to stop making my wife angry at me. And then I should have a talk with my wife, and I should tell her that I'm talking to the number that made her angry, so that it doesn't make her angry anymore.Arcane Sandwich

    A number caused my anger towards my doctor? It seems like I'm not a very reasonable person myself. I should probably apologize to my doctor. I will tell him that a number caused me to become angry at him.Arcane Sandwich
    Straw-men.

    Doesn't seem like a very good test if I have to calculate something so basic like one plus one.Arcane Sandwich
    Not the point.

    What do I think will happen? Given those circumstances in the present moment? I don't know. Maybe I'll get a phone call from my doctor. Maybe my wife interrupts me, because she wants me to buy some fruit. A lot of things could happen in those circumstances.Arcane Sandwich
    Moving the goal posts. You've given a new set of circumstances.

    What caused me to write a scribble? I don't know, I guess my brain is what caused it.Arcane Sandwich
    Ok. What caused your brain to do that if not the visual of scribbles (numbers and operator symbols) and a goal to pass a test?

    You typically want to think beyond the first thought that comes to mind when responding to posts on a philosophy forum.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Straw-men.Harry Hindu

    How so? Numbers are not the sort of entities that have causal efficacy. That was my point, irony notwithstanding.

    Not the point.Harry Hindu

    It was a poor example, that's all I'm saying.

    Moving the goal posts. You've given a new set of circumstances.Harry Hindu

    Under what circumstances can a number have causal efficacy? I can't think of any.

    Ok. What caused your brain to do that if not the visual of scribbles (numbers and operator symbols) and a goal to pass a test?Harry Hindu

    But a scribble is not a number. The scribble "2" is a numeral, not a number.

    You typically want to think beyond the first thought that comes to mind when responding to posts on a philosophy forum.Harry Hindu

    Why? I'm not on the job right now. That sort of mentality is for writing articles and books. When I'm responding to posts on a philosophy forum, I allow myself much more freedom in my expressions and my thoughts.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    How so? Numbers are not the sort of entities that have causal efficacy. That was my point, irony notwithstanding.Arcane Sandwich
    Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm using real-world examples to prove my point that numbers do have causal efficacy. Numbers are ideas and ideas have causal efficacy, as I have shown using many real-world examples - your wife's behavior at the number of oranges you purchased, your behavior caused by the number of pills you took, and a SpaceX Starship on a launch pad blasting off into space. Another example is behavior caused by hallucinations and delusions. What else could explain their behavior except that they are hallucinating - having false ideas.

    It was a poor example, that's all I'm saying.Arcane Sandwich
    You're not playing along with better examples.

    But a scribble is not a number. The scribble "2" is a numeral, not a number.Arcane Sandwich
    Then what is a number? A requirement of existence is that it has causal efficacy. Is a number the very scribble, "number"? If not, then what does the scribble, "number" refer to? How is it that you are here talking about numbers if numbers have no causal efficacy?
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm using real-world examples to prove my point that numbers do have causal efficacy.Harry Hindu

    And I'm using real-world counter-examples to prove that they don't.

    Numbers are ideas and ideas have causal efficacyHarry Hindu

    Numbers are fictions, and no fictions have causal efficacy. If you want to say that all fictions are brain processes and that as such, they have causal efficacy, then I would say that you're failing to distinguish numbers as fictions and brain processes as facts.

    What else could explain their behavior except that they are hallucinating - having false ideas.Harry Hindu

    What else could explain their behaviour? A lot of things. Atoms, for example. Contemporary physics might explain it. You don't need numbers in your ontology to begin with.

    You're not playing along with better examples.Harry Hindu

    Well, I'm not going to make your case for you, I don't see how an ontology with numbers that have causal efficacy is better than an ontology in which that is not the case.

    Then what is a number?Harry Hindu

    A useful fiction in the Nietzschean sense, which is ultimately a brain process.

    A requirement of existence is that it has causal efficacy.Harry Hindu

    Numbers don't exist as fictions, they exist as brain processes.

    If not, then what does the scribble, "number" refer to?Harry Hindu

    The scribble "number" refers to a useful fiction in the Nietzschean sense.

    How is it that you are here talking about numbers if numbers have no causal efficacy?Harry Hindu

    Because other things have the causal efficacy that you're referring to: the cells of my body, the chemicals that I am made from, the subatomic particles that compose me.
  • Hanover
    13.2k
    Doesn't 1.1 come after 1 but before 2?
  • jgill
    3.9k
    Numbers are fictions, and no fictions have causal efficacy.Arcane Sandwich

    Numbers don't exist as fictions, they exist as brain processesArcane Sandwich

    So, numbers are fictions that don't exist as fictions. Does The Maltese Falcon exist as fiction?

    Word games
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    So, numbers are fictions that don't exist as fictions.jgill

    Exactly.

    Does The Maltese Falcon exist as fiction?jgill

    No, it does not. Unless, of course, you wish to distinguish conceptual existence from real existence, and to treat each as a different first-order predicate, and to declare that the existential quantifier has no ontological import. That is indeed what Mario Bunge himself does.

    Word gamesjgill

    More like philosophy, but OK. You're entitled to your opinion, however mistaken such opinion might otherwise be.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    When matter and anti matter collide they are transformed into pure energy.EnPassant
    "collide" is motion.

    It is only possible to do this if reality is intrinsically mathematical.EnPassant
    They could have divided it by other numbers, and it would have worked fine. Reality is describable with mathematics, but reality is not mathematical. Mathe is a language, which numbers, formulas and equations are its alphabets, words and sentences.
  • EnPassant
    695
    What about Combinatorics, Group theory, Set theory, Boolean algebra etc.?
    The world is exactly the way these disciplines describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    What about Combinatorics, Group theory, Set theory, Boolean algebra etc.?
    The world is exactly the way these disciplines describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics
    EnPassant

    All these are the theories of Math. Theory means human abstract thinking on the world phenomenon, objects and events.

    The world has been existing long and far before the first appearance of life on earth, and any of the theories were invented by the human abstract thinking.
  • EnPassant
    695
    "Theory means human abstract thinking on the world phenomenon, objects and events."

    To abstract means to 'take from'; to lift the math from the reality.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    To abstract means to 'take from'; to lift the math from the reality.EnPassant

    It seems the other way around i.e. from the reality, math is found, and applied back to the reality for the descriptions.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Of course some math are found from the already established axioms and theorems via deduction.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    And I'm using real-world counter-examples to prove that they don't.Arcane Sandwich
    Any example you use proves my point, not yours, as how could you be here in this thread proving the existence of something that you claim has no causal efficacy? What caused you to type out the scribbles, "numbers", "1", "2", etc. if the idea of numbers has no causal efficacy? Do you even understand the mind-body problem?

    Numbers are fictions, and no fictions have causal efficacy. If you want to say that all fictions are brain processes and that as such, they have causal efficacy, then I would say that you're failing to distinguish numbers as fictions and brain processes as facts.Arcane Sandwich
    Santa Claus is a fiction yet look at all the images of Santa Claus and people dressed like Santa Claus during the holidays. What caused them to dress like that and to create images in Santa's likeness if Santa does not exist?

    What else could explain their behaviour? A lot of things. Atoms, for example. Contemporary physics might explain it. You don't need numbers in your ontology to begin with.Arcane Sandwich
    Yet physics is based on mathematics. :roll:

    Well, I'm not going to make your case for you, I don't see how an ontology with numbers that have causal efficacy is better than an ontology in which that is not the case.Arcane Sandwich
    Understanding that mind and body are causally linked helps to get past the mind-body problem.

    A useful fiction in the Nietzschean sense, which is ultimately a brain process.Arcane Sandwich
    What does it mean for something to be useful if it has no causal efficacy?

    Numbers don't exist as fictions, they exist as brain processes.Arcane Sandwich
    You are contradicting yourself (and in the same post):
    Numbers are fictions, and no fictions have causal efficacyArcane Sandwich

    Because other things have the causal efficacy that you're referring to: the cells of my body, the chemicals that I am made from, the subatomic particles that compose me.Arcane Sandwich
    Yet you cannot explain how ideas cause you to behave in certain ways. If I told you a lie (a fiction) to manipulate you into behaving a certain way then the fiction had a causal effect on your behavior.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k


    So, numbers are fictions that don't exist as fictions. — jgill


    Exactly.

    Does The Maltese Falcon exist as fiction? — jgill


    No, it does not. Unless, of course, you wish to distinguish conceptual existence from real existence, and to treat each as a different first-order predicate, and to declare that the existential quantifier has no ontological import. That is indeed what Mario Bunge himself does.
    Arcane Sandwich

    ∃x(Mx∧¬Ex) - For some "x", it is the case that "x" is the Maltese Falcon, and "x" does not exist. Notice that "Existence" is a first-order predicate ("E"), and that the existential quantifier ("∃") does not have ontological import. It that sense, it would be more accurate to call it "particularizing quantifier", as opposed to the "universal quantifier" ("∀"). And what goes for the Maltese Falcon, goes for numbers.

    EDIT:

    Do you even understand the mind-body problem?Harry Hindu

    Yes, I do. It's like the gut-digestion problem, or the legs-walking problem: a comparison between a thing (brain, gut, legs) with a process (digesting, minding, walking). In that sense, I agree with Bunge's psychoneural identity hypothesis, as developed in his book Matter and Mind.

    EDIT 2:

    What does it mean for something to be useful if it has no causal efficacy?

    Numbers don't exist as fictions, they exist as brain processes. — Arcane Sandwich

    You are contradicting yourself (and in the same post):

    Numbers are fictions, and no fictions have causal efficacy — Arcane Sandwich
    Harry Hindu

    As I've explained, to be (in the sense of predication) is not the same thing as to exist. In other words, being and existence are not the same thing. Numbers are fictions, without existing as fictions. For example:

    ∃x(Fx∧¬Ex) - For some "x", it is the case that "x" is fictional, and "x" does not exist.

    Where is the contradiction, @Harry Hindu?
  • jgill
    3.9k
    ↪Corvus
    What about Combinatorics, Group theory, Set theory, Boolean algebra etc.?
    The world is exactly the way these disciplines describe.
    EnPassant

    So, the world has transfinite ordinal numbers. Or does it?
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    There's easier examples. I have two apples. But I want to eat three. I eat the two apples. Two minus three is negative one, right? So, where's the negative apple? Do negative numbers exist? Blah blah blah..
  • jgill
    3.9k
    I have two apples. But I want to eat threeArcane Sandwich

    You apply Banach-Tarski to one apple, turning it into two the same size, then eat all three. But only if you have faith in the Axiom of Choice. If you do not you might raise the question on The Philosophy Forum. Abundant deep answers are found there.
  • EnPassant
    695
    "So, the world has transfinite ordinal numbers. Or does it?"

    You are being too literal. That mathematics is real does not mean every mathematical object is real. It means that real fundamentals can be understood in mathematical terms.
  • Wayfarer
    23.5k
    I have two apples. But I want to eat three.Arcane Sandwich

    Presumably, they will have seeds. All you need, is patience.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Presumably, they will have seeds. All you need, is patience.Wayfarer

    There are two apples on my table. But actually there's three, because one of them is a negative apple. It just so happens that it's invisible to everyone, including myself, because it has a negative number (-1) associated with it.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    You are being too literal. That mathematics is real does not mean every mathematical object is real. It means that real fundamentals can be understood in mathematical terms.EnPassant

    I have a theory about that (but I have no evidence to support it, sadly). Here's my theory: integers might exist. Fractions might exist as well. Negative numbers don't exist, I don't see how they could. Imaginary numbers don't exit (where is the square root of minus one apple? I don't see it on my kitchen table), and complex numbers in general don't exist.

    There is no way to coherently justify this theory of mine, BTW.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Numbers are fictions, without existing as fictions.Arcane Sandwich
    Look up the definition of "be" and you will see the definition is "exist". :roll:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be
    2.a.
    : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality

    I find it much easier and simpler (Occam's Razor and all that) to simply say that numbers exist as ideas, and to assert that numbers exist as anything other than ideas is a category mistake. The same goes for Santa Claus. Santa is an idea and to assert that Santa is anything more than an idea is making a category mistake.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Look up the definition of "be" and you will see the definition is "exist". :roll:Harry Hindu

    Does the Merriam Webster dictionary have the final word in matters of first-order predicate logic and the ontology of fictional entities in general, and of mathematical objects in particular? That sounds like they have the Foundations of Mathematics all figured out then. I wonder why professional mathematicians don't read the Merriam Webster dictionary more often. I will contact them and I will tell them to read it.

    I find it much easier and simpler (Occam's Razor and all that) to simply say that numbers exist as ideas, and to assert that numbers exist as anything other than ideas is a category mistake.Harry Hindu

    But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes. We pretend that they have some sort of autonomous existence, but they don't. Do the rules of chess exist as ideas, with causal efficacy, in your view?

    The same goes for Santa Claus. Santa is an idea and to assert that Santa is anything more than an idea is making a category mistake.Harry Hindu

    But Santa Claus is a fictional character. He doesn't exist. Real people just pretend to be him, just like a professional actor pretends to be a character. Batman doesn't really exist, he's just a character played by different actors (i.e., Adam West, Christian Bale, etc.)
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Look up the definition of "be" and you will see the definition is "exist". :roll: — Harry Hindu


    Does the Merriam Webster dictionary have the final word in matters of first-order predicate logic and the ontology of fictional entities in general, and of mathematical objects in particular? That sounds like they have the Foundations of Mathematics all figured out then. I wonder why professional mathematicians don't read the Merriam Webster dictionary more often. I will contact them and I will tell them to read it.
    Arcane Sandwich

    I am contacting you here, to tell you, that you, as a professional mathematician, must read the Merriam Webster dictionary in order solve the unsolved problems in the field known as Foundations of Mathematics. They have already solved everything, the people that wrote the Merriam Webster dictionary. Source: Trust Me Bro.
  • EnPassant
    695
    "Negative numbers don't exist, I don't see how they could. Imaginary numbers don't exit (where is the square root of minus one apple? I don't see it on my kitchen table), and complex numbers in general don't exist."

    Why do numbers have to count things? Complex numbers define space and geometric concepts. And if they do count things note that complex numbers are used in counting Reimann's zeros in the zeta function.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Why do numbers have to count things? Complex numbers define space and geometric concepts. And if they do count things note that complex numbers are used in counting Reimann's zeros in the zeta function.EnPassant

    So what's the imaginary number that the letter "i" refers to, for example when you want to calculate the square root of -1?. What number is "i"? You see? It makes no sense as a question, because you're not even referring to it with a numeral to begin with. Do you see how utterly pointless it is to talk about this as if this were metaphysics or ontology somehow? It's more like inventing some alternative rules for the game of chess. That's the "level of dignity" that Foundations of Mathematics has. Now whose "fault" is that? Do professional mathematicians need to take the blame here, yes or no?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Does the Merriam Webster dictionary have the final word in matters of first-order predicate logic and the ontology of fictional entities in general, and of mathematical objects in particular? That sounds like they have the Foundations of Mathematics all figured out then. I wonder why professional mathematicians don't read the Merriam Webster dictionary more often. I will contact them and I will tell them to read it.Arcane Sandwich
    Are you saying you have the final word on the nature of existence? Are you saying that the matter of the ontology of existence has been settled?

    I don't think so: https://iep.utm.edu/existenc/
    "It is not easy to characterize what existence as a first-order property is."

    The most likely problem to occur here is that we end up talking past ourselves.

    But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes. We pretend that they have some sort of autonomous existence, but they don't. Do the rules of chess exist as ideas, with causal efficacy, in your view?Arcane Sandwich
    Not every idea is a fiction. Everything is a process. Non-fictional ideas "are just brain processes too". The difference is their relationship with the world, and what kinds of things you can accomplish by implementing them. Do you successfully get your starship to Mars, do you dress up in a way that others successfully recognize you as Santa Claus?

    Does your idea of how to play chess permit you to play chess? Does it not have a causal effect on whether you get disqualified from the chess match or not?

    But Santa Claus is a fictional character. He doesn't exist. Real people just pretend to be him, just like a professional actor pretends to be a character. Batman doesn't really exist, he's just a character played by different actors (i.e., Adam West, Christian Bale, etc.)Arcane Sandwich
    But how could real people act like someone that does not exist, or does not have some sort of causal efficacy? How did they come to dress and act like that in the first place?
  • EnPassant
    695
    "But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes."

    Brain processes are physical images of thought. The object is an image of energy/spirit/mind.

    "What number is "i"? You see? It makes no sense as a question, because you're not even referring to it with a numeral to begin with."

    Why do you want to make 'i' a 'number'? It is a component in the logic of mathematics. 'And' is not a number but it has a place in mathematics. Like with with 'or' and 'if' etc. See "Logical Operators". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.