What do numbers objectively look like in the physical realm?

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is a very strange and new question something an autistic would ask but what do numbers truely look like , that is existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions.

Rules:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not mean 1,2,3,4,5 ( 1 is where you draw a line , 2 is where you make a curve then create an angle , 3 is where you have a bum , 4 and so on ).

I also do not mean where you take 2 apples = 2 , where you take 3 hearts equals 3. It could be anything.

I do also not want anything relating to Synesthesia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also:
Is there a field of mathematics relating to this , that investigates what numbers look like?

What is the problem with my question?

There are no numbers in the physical realm. Numbers are purely abstract or mental.

ruveyn

"No answer is truly final"

Duneyblues

Platonism is appreciated but I can't argue with a man settled firmly in his beliefs nor can you argue with a person settled in fantasy.
There are many debatable aspects between schools of thoughts in the philosophy of mathematics.

Gödel's platonism postulates a special kind of mathematical intuition that lets us perceive mathematical objects directly. (This view bears resemblances to many things Husserl said about mathematics, and supports Kant's idea that mathematics is synthetic a priori.) Davis and Hersh have suggested in their book The Mathematical Experience that most mathematicians act as though they are Platonists, even though, if pressed to defend the position carefully, they may retreat to formalist modification of platonism.

You're thinking of Cnoons, in Neal Stephenson's book Anathem.

from the glossary:
Cnoon: According to Protan metatheorics, the pure, eternal, changeless entities, such as geometric shapes, theorems, numbers, etc., that belong to another plane of existence (the Hylaean Theoric World) and that are somehow perceived or discovered (as opposed to fabricated) by working theors.

Cnous: Ancient historical figure famous for having a vision in which he claimed to see into another, higher world. The vision was interpreted in two different and incompatible ways by his daughters Hylaea and Deat.

Hylaean Theoric World: The name used by most adherents of Protism to denote the higher plane of existence populated by perfect geometric forms, theorems, and other pure ideas (cnoons)

You have to go up the wick to a Hylaen Theoric World that informs ours. If you go far enough up the wick, you will find numbers that we consider abstract in their concrete physical forms. Not here in our cosmos, though.

I'd suggest reading that book (it's speculative fiction.) If you think about ure forms of numbers, you are entirely likely to enjoy it. Besides, a couple of the characters are Aspies.

http://www.amazon.com/Anathem-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0061474096

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

patterns exist, but numbers are an artifact of having fingers.

the universe is indeed extremely rhythmical. i think there may well be many other ways of expressing this, besides our conceptual system of mathematics. it has been made more & more subtle, to the point where it seems to describe reality with great precision--as long as we stay in the context of physical measurement.

knowing this is part of science; ignoring it, the essence of scientism.

Yeah, patterns... in that book I mentioned above, there's this novel concept of a group of thinkers who are forbidden computers, so they develop a system of singing to do complex calculation ... the sung notes harmonize with each other in specific overtones, yielding the results...

[quote="DuneyBlues"]I know this is a very strange and new question something an autistic would ask but what do numbers truely look like , that is existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions.

Numbers are names of relations that subsist. They do not exist. I here use Russell's stipulative definition whereby "relations subsist" means that, e.g., in "x is 2 ft. away from y" the relation "is 2ft.away from" is destroyed when x or y is moved away, while x and y remain in existence. It is possible for x to be destroyed so that it is no longer an x, but the material that was x still exists (matter cannot be destoyed) but in a form that can no longer be called "x."
Wittgenstein said that a number is just the exponent of the operation (0+1) so that

1 = (0+1)
2= ((0+1)+1)
3 + (((0+1)+1)+1)
etc.

But this not quite right, for if 1 = (0+1) then 2 = ((0+1)+(0+1)). Thus there are only 2 numbers: 0 and 1. And those numbers name the relations 'non-existence' and 'existence,' respectively.