[Zagadka]

I honestly have no idea where to post this thread, but it is sciencey and I harbor an innate hatred for philosophical masturbation.

The question is based on/explained by/introduced by the following video:

I'd have a discussion on the video thread, but YouTube comments are fucking horrible for that.

Anyway, I'm not a mathematician. I'm generally pretty bad at math, though I love the theories. This video discusses three interpretations of "do numbers exist" that are almost more philosophy than math... the platonism, nominalism, and the fictionalism approaches. There may be more, but these are experts and they narrow it down to these three concepts. They are defined in the video better than I can summarize.

My reply somewhere in the comments section is:

Would it be correct to say that a nominalist viewpoint would be that a number is "of something"... saying 1,748,392 means nothing, but saying 1,748,392 kg means something. Similarly, pi (or tau if you prefer) is only a thing when it is applied to a circle. Without the circle, it isn't anything.

So, like, "1" has no meaning in itself (unless it is "1 of something"), but if you give it even an arbitrary meaning like "1 AU", then it exists.

I state "would it be correct" because I do not have a good understanding of university level math or mathematical philosophy; my question is genuine, not reflective. If my understanding is true, then I would definitely lean towards the nominalist approach.

From the platonism view, as I understand it, "a blue banana shaped like a starfish" is an equally valid "abstract idea" as 1,748.392 (random number for example).

One comment on the video is

Nominalism is how children and the uneducated think about math, which is why humans had so much trouble adopting "zero" and negative numbers (not to mention the imaginary number sqrt(-1)) for so long. If you are a mathematician like me, you have seen lots of things much stranger than sqrt(-1), and are left with no other conclusion than that math is a logical tool. Fictionalism wins.

Well, I'm not a child, but I am "uneducated" at a university level (I met my requirement with statistics because fuck calculus). But I don't have a problem adopting zero or negative numbers. I can certainly say that there are zero bananas on my desk, and I can understand a negative number in a more abstract way... I can't say there are -1 bananas on my desk (don't ask me why I'm fixated on bananas), but I can comprehend there being one less banana on my desk than could potentially be there. I usually just think of such things on a graph.

I also don't have a problem with sqrt(-1) or other imaginary numbers, since I take the operative word "imaginary" literally. Maybe fictionalism makes more sense there, since it literally doesn't fucking exist ever anywhere, and that may work for more abstract concepts. Dividing by zero I can imagine since I picture it on a graph:



I'm not sure if that is technically nominalism or platonism or fictionalism though.

But I don't think that "1" exists. "1" is specifically 1 of something. You don't have to necessarily mention or define that something, but 1 unit divided by 2 units is half of 1 unit.

Thoughts?

[Rancid]

My philosophy is, if it's useful, does it really matter if it does or does not exist?

The interpretation of a number is an abstraction of an idea IMO. I don't know which philosophy that falls under though.

-1 bananas could mean that you simply owe someone a banana. It's about the context in which that number was generated in.
An imaginary number is a means to help deal with transitions (or rotations) between positive and negative sides of the number line. We're just adding a dimension to the number line. I'm not so sure that imaginary really mess with other math concepts. The hell would I know though. It sure as hell makes sense to me from an engineering sense. I'm just a fucking moron though.

[Decky]

It does to philosophers.

The unexamined life is not worth living and all that.

[Rancid]

I've added some more to my post.

Anyway, what exactly does "exist" even mean with respect to a number?

[Decky]

Ok, this will most likely be wrong but...

Objectively exist rather than exist as an abstract idea in someone's head.

There is a school who believes that equations are just ides in people's heads and school that believes that they objectively exist independently of people for example.

It has been a long time since my Philosophy lectures though.

[Rancid]

Objectively exist rather than exist as an abstract idea in someone's head.

I see. Well, I would say, it's an abstract idea overall, and you can effectively consider it to exist when you attach it to something physical in the world. Like 231 penis pumps for example.

Then again, does effective existence = existence?

[Decky]

Then again, does effective existence = existence?

Ok.

Insofar as you can claim that anything exists (another big issue in philosophy that I'm not getting into here), yes, yes it does (to philosophers anyway).

[Rancid]

Then I'll go with the nominalists. It exists if you attach it to something in the real world. Like 48 anal beads.

[mikema63]

An abstract concept extrapolated and expanded from, and thus describing, reality.

Though there is also some ingraned knowledge of numbers in humans and other animals suggesting its been with us for quite some time.

anyway, as others have asked, does it really matter?

[Rancid]

Apparently it does matter, otherwise philosophers wouldn't have a reason to live.

[mikema63]

What do we need them for? Once they made science all the good ones became scientists.

[Decky]

Apparently it does matter, otherwise philosophers wouldn't have a reason to live.

Rancid has got it in one.

I'm just a fucking moron though.

This is obviously not true.

What do we need them for?

I believe I once heard a Philosophy lecturer trying to use medical ethics as a way of justifying his existence.

Take from that what you will.

[mikema63]

People that know nothing about medicine or the conditions that doctors work under shouldn't have any say.

[Decky]

People that know nothing about medicine or the conditions that doctors work under shouldn't have any say.

Stop being such a philosopher!

[mikema63]

[Decky]

What? The only way they you could claim that philosophers should be excluded is by making an overtly philosophical statement. Good work!

[mikema63]

Jump off a bridge philosopher, I'm going to order them to stop, philosophy or no.

[Decky]

Science tells you what you can do, it can never tell you what you should do, that's where philosophy comes in.

[mikema63]

I'm just going to do it, wether its right or not is inconcequential.

Death to all philosophers except my own!

[Decky]

I'm just going to do it, wether its right or not is inconcequential.

That's pretty fucking sound.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it