Do number exist in nature?
>>429858
The golden ratio only approximates those shapes, though.
>>429858
Radiation of particles approximates logarithmic decay, which points to the number e
>>429877
*exponential decay
>>429848
How many fingers on your hand?
>0
>4
>5
>numbers don't exist
30 seconds OP, go go go!
>>429896
Define fingers.
>>429868
>>429896
So it's just a property that you ascribe to a defined physical boundary. It doesn't exist.
>>429907
Whoa man what if like WE don't even exist?
>>429907
4 is not a property. Pink is a property. Soft is a property.
4 is a quantity. That anything exists, quantities exist. That quantities exist, numbers exist, even if that number is 1.
Define 'in nature'
Surely you're not asking if you could go to the forest and find a number 2 walking around?
Quantities exist in nature, numbers don't.
>>429897
Appendages at the extremities of your hands.
>>429897
This is what most of /phil/ discussion, in the past, now and hereafter amount to. Fuck me.
>>429921
'One' is a quantity, not a number. Anything 1+ is enumeration and therefore a property because it keeps internal state.
>>429907
That's a complete non-sequiter. If physical boundaries exist and numbers are properties are properties of said boundaries, then numbers exist.
>>429936
>inb4 some 1st year undergrad says 'define hands'.
>>429946
>ascribe
>>429848
Integers exist in nature, everything else is made up by us
>>429956
But if said acription can be true or false independant of anyone's beliefs, that is, if there really are 5 fingers on my hand whether or not anyone is looking, then such as ascription 'hooks onto' some property in the world. And these properties really do exist in the world. If numbers are identical with these properties, then numbers exist.
Unless you wanna be a total relativist about numbers of objects, and say that there is no critereon of rightness or wrongness of counting independant of muh feelings. But then you might as well say that there are exactly 3 protons in an oxygen atom and that you have 17 buttcheeks.
Why do humans always count by groups of 10? Just due to our number of fingers?
>>430042
His argument is
>If you don't count, numbers don't exist
which, while somewhat true, is at the same time completely false and retarded.
>>430181
>which, while somewhat true, is at the same time completely false and retarded.
Why?
the most fundamental mathematical ideas are inherently metaphorical:
> The number line, where numbers are conceptualized metaphorically as points on a line.
>Boole’s algebra of classes, where the formation of classes of objects is conceptualized metaphorically in terms of algebraic operations and elements: plus, times, zero, one, and so on.
>Symbolic logic, where reasoning is conceptualized metaphorically as mathematical calculation using symbols.
>Trigonometric functions, where angles are conceptualized metaphorically as numbers.
>The complex plane, where multiplication is conceptualized metaphorically in terms of rotation.
>>429848
No, math is a construct
>>429848
Define nature.
>>430172
>Why do humans always count by groups of 10?
We don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system#Occurrence_in_human_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigesimal#Use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal#Usage
>>429936
Define hands
>>429848
Are you asking because:
"Humans consider themselves unique so they've rooted their whole theory of
existence on their uniqueness.
One is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into
place are a mere scetch. One plus one equals two, that's all we've learned.
But one plus one has never equaled two. There are in fact, no numbers and no
letters. We codify our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it
comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget it's unfathomable
scale.
From a car speeding down the road, speed up the image infinitely, and the car
dissapears. So what proof do we have of it's existence. Time gives legitimacy
of its existence. Time is the only true unit of measure, that gives truth to
the existence of matter. Without time, we don't exist.
Time is unity."?
I've given it a lot of thought and I believe Lucy is on to something here.
>>430181
>while somewhat true, is at the same time completely false
That's retarded.
