What do numbers objectively look like in the physical realm?

Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

scubasteve
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: San Francisco

12 Jan 2012, 3:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Two opposing forces produce a 0 -net- force.

That's completely different. I'm talking about 0 as a quantity of something (or lack thereof.)

Your argument amounts to " 5 - 5 can't equal nothing because 5 is something. " But yes, two somethings can cancel each other out.

Sunshine7 wrote:

A) There are zero apples.
B) Apples don't exist.

You're trying to compare a statement A about a specific set, vs. statement B which is universal. Of course that doesn't work. However:

If there were zero apples in the universe, apples would not exist.

If there are zero apples in any particular set, apples do not exist in that set.

Sunshine7
Sea Gull

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 218

12 Jan 2012, 3:58 pm

Quote:

I'm talking about 0 as a quantity of something (or lack thereof.)

I think neither 0 nor any other number = a quantity. The closer concept mathematics has to the semantic concept of "quantity" is the Lebesgue measure (integral). Numbers are just, er, numbers. 0, -5, 13, 234.2231, pi, i...

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jan 2012, 6:34 pm

scubasteve wrote:

If there are zero apples in any particular set, apples do not exist in that set.

The empty set has a cardinal number. It happens to be 0.

ruveyn

scubasteve
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: San Francisco

12 Jan 2012, 7:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The empty set has a cardinal number. It happens to be 0.

The empty set does not contain any number (or apple.) If it contained an element, it would not be "empty".

More accurately, the empty set is zero. It's a different representation of the same concept.

Sunshine7 wrote:

I think neither 0 nor any other number = a quantity.

True. Poor choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make there is that the possibility of a zero sum does not prove that zero is "something". Combining two "somethings" can result in "nothing". (In mathematics, at least. The rules of physics are not necessarily the same.)

mar00
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: Germany

13 Jan 2012, 12:59 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

mar00 wrote:

I think this question belongs to PPR. It is not a scientific question.

Forum title:

Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

The ontology of math could still be regarded as a mathematical topic. While one could make a case that since this is philosophy of math, so it goes on PPR, this is one of those overlapping jurisdiction threads. Any pretense that there's some neat non-arbitrary way to box this up on one side of the divide or the other is preposterous.

Thanks for clearing that up... Too bad in my maths degree I didn't have a single course regarding this, something. There wasn't even an option for it.
And the fact that you came by only to call my observation 'preposterous' and said nothing on the subject.
I think you should go back to PPR section, you wouldn't have to deal with a pretense of a scientist.
This question, as it stands, belongs to philosophy and not maths.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jan 2012, 4:17 pm

scubasteve wrote:

0 is the additive identity element in a ring. That is something. It is a particular number that has the property that 0 + x = x + 0 = x.

ruveyn

scubasteve
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: San Francisco

13 Jan 2012, 6:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:

scubasteve wrote:

0 is the additive identity element in a ring. That is something. It is a particular number that has the property that 0 + x = x + 0 = x.

ruveyn

Good point. Once again, I've failed to choose my words carefully...

Zero is something. It represents the concept of nothing.

Dilbert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,728
Location: 47°36'N 122°20'W

13 Jan 2012, 6:54 pm

Matchsticks. Or tick marks. That's as close as you are going to get to numbers in the real world.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/201 ... ustom1.jpg

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

13 Jan 2012, 9:50 pm

Numbers are abstractions and dont really exists in the physical world.

But you can use tricks to visualize numbers.

Even large hard to imagine quantities.

Imagine a child's wooden block one inch square.

Then imagine a whole column of of these blocks stacked to a hieght slighly more than the hieght of a door jam. Thats what a hundred "looks like".

Then imagine that column becoming a wall constructed of these one inch wooden blocks as wide as it is tall. And then becoming a cube a hundred wide, a hundred tall, and a hundred deep, perhaps sitting in your living room. Thats what one million of something "looks like".

Samanamsonite
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

24 Jan 2012, 2:34 pm

i think a number one would be conceived in the mind as the first dimension, or an infinitely thin line with only length. no depth or width. then just add dimensions until you get to ten. then you have completed the base 10 system. you can go on from there.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2012, 4:25 pm

Samanamsonite wrote:

There are no "infinitely thin lines" in the physical realm. Numbers, as numbers, exist only as neural patterns in our heads. If there were no sentient beings in the Kosmos there would be no numbers.

ruveyn

Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Jump to:

What do numbers objectively look like in the physical realm? Post Reply New Topic

What do numbers objectively look like in the physical realm?