Could science be done without numbers?
No-one knows number.
Take Putin for example, he doesn't even know 2. LOL... Seriously. People think that there won't be a Russia versus China war, immediately after.
1. West versus Middle & Far East plus some EU defects.
2. China, Middle-East versus Russia.
You can't think above 1 m8
>M0nK3Y knows 2 - infinity.
>>1151229
wew lad
>>1151241
I'm sorry, I made a mistake.
1.9r is China versus Russia.
>>1151192
For Carnap, asking ourselves an ontological question like if numbers do exist or not is irrelevant to science. He would argue that the common or scientific linguistic frame posit that numbers already exist.
So when I talk about how many days are in a week, or about how many rotation the moon does around the earth in a year, I have included numbers in my speech, therefore I do not need to ask myself if numbers exist in an ontological way. It would be trivial, because it would be to operate outside of the framework of my speech which already includes numbers.
But Carnap point of view was rebutted by Quine in his paper Variables Explained Away, which destroys the idea that it is trivial to the framework to wonder if numbers do exist.
>>1151192
>Could science be done without numbers?
yes, just replace numbers by cocks and your mother's pussy
>>1151488
how
>>1151241
Don't respond to attention whores
>>1151528
Trail and error. All you need is the ability to compare two results
Archimedes, his eyes opened.
>>1151588
this
the process of forming hypotheses and testing them, eliminating variables, testing physical attributes, forming models for predicting events, etc. do not essentially require a number system, but no one would argue that without numbers anything would be nearly as easy.
I don't think many meaningful additions to science today would be possible without numbers, but with a hypothetical case in a historical perspective, sure. the numbers we have today were popularized more through commerce than science. People have been making models for the physical world since before agriculture. Just look at those old sayings like 'red sky at night sailor's delight' (first one i could think of) old sayings like that would be formed by some old person's experience observing the world and passed down forming the collective knowledge of the natural world.
>>1151588
how would you express magnitude, direction (angles)
>>1151609
When the bathtub overflow'd.
It would be extremely difficult, but if you have ever looked at medium / higher level maths you'll see that numbers are not as common.
Example: Stress / Strain derivation for a 2d rotating disk.
>>1151854
Don't the variables in those equations essentially boil down to unspecified numbers?
>>1151618
You wouldn't be able to do any statistical analysis of your results.
>>1151874
No. Coloquially numbers are elements of a field. Free bosonic/fermionic quantum field theory can be constructed from algebraic (i.e. group or ring theoretic) means without any reference to fields. But of course if your want to make predictions you will need numbers.
>>1151192
Yes. Rigorous empiricism can exist purely qualitatively, it's just much more limited in scope.
>>1151192
I'd do a lot of science with her sans numbers and clothing.
>>1151192
Majority of math is done without numbers or with very few numbers.
>>1151854
>It would be extremely difficult
For you.
>>1151229
>>1152112
CIA, with his thumbs hooked bravely.
Science is mostly about mesuring & quantifying.
How do you mesure and quantify without numbers ?
>>1151192
Faraday's notebooks supposedly didn't contain any equations.
>>1152110
Discovery maybe.
Application no.
"Derp"
Pic and thread related.
>>1151609
Syracuse, when the walls fell
>>1152272
Shaka, when the plane fell
>>1152272
Just want to comment you are appreciated friend. These posts have uplifted me
>>1151192
Number are only present on the most basic level of math.
Most of the modern math is a jumble of algebraic symbols with nary a number between them
>>1154533
>algebraic symbols
I have no clue about math, but don't those represent numbers?
>>1151192
Just no.
The scientific method explicitly lists collecting data. This can be hard to do, so SOMETIMES modern science as switched to loosening restrictions on controlling variables and has accepted Beyesian probabilities...but you still need numbers.
>>1152053
Now hold on there. I'd say that the ring of integers has numbers as elements.
While you might care to include this example in "fields" by observing that the rationals exist, you can make a sumilar argument for any integral domain R by pointing out that it has a field of fractions F. Does this mean that R is made of numbers?
>>1151632
You don't, you'd imply distinguish between success and failure.
For instance, if a structure breaks down after putting a certain weight on it, you can say it's not a good structure. You'd technically have no need for numbers to assess this
>>1157251
Numbers are definetley more important than letters right?
How big of a distinction is there between the two? Because the two are generally taught in tandem (sort of with math and writing/reading) through primary school.
