Yes!
So UM, why ask about that which is being symbolized, when the symbols and their concepts are the only things we can create? You don't mean that, do you?
Printable View
Effectively this question is the same as asking 'what was the first word?'.
Again, there are no real answers. There are various qualities of the first moment of the universe that you could give words to; for example, 'hot', or 'singularity'; but the words themselves never 'existed'.
You just said it is part of the formula for the circumference of a circle.
What the words mean did exist.
Numbers, unlike words, are both the symbols and what the symbols represent.
If you want to have a debate on that, start another thread. I have made it very clear what I am asking.
Yes, you have made it clear. And we have made it clear that it doesn't exist. What else can we do, just not post?
Please study a bit of Group Theory.
What exactly are you asking?
You said this...
The term "pi" is in the formula you stated. What is pi, according to you?
Right. Well, just in case you really are lost on what the question is, here is another way of putting it...
Did the principle of this many... $ ... exist before the principle of this many... $$ ... ? Or did some other type of many exist first?
If that is where you officially stand, then thank you for your time. Good day.
We don't even know what pi is, but it doesn't even matter since even just the concept of pi as a theoretical perfect ratio between a circle's diameter and circumference is based on the human concept of a perfect circle which doesn't exist in nature.
So far, essentially everyone who disagrees with your question falls under the category that you are now dismissing outright. Perhaps you should either be more receptive to people's response and how it pertains to your question or just not ask any in the first place.
I think it was 8.
I like 8.
We do know what pi is, and you just said what it is.
Perfect circles do exist, just not as objects.
I responded to it, but I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion on it. Sort of like with the Beyond Dreaming prerequisite, if you don't think numbers are anything more than human symbols, then you are posting in the wrong thread.
What you're essentially saying is that at the start of the universe numbers were slowly formed before being exploded apart in the Big Bang.
Seriously. There is no element of time to a number system. Numbers aren't formed in physical processes. The whole question is bizarre.
Silly gooses, we all know that numbers don't really exist deep down.
Apparently, holding that view disqualifies you for participation in this thread. UM would rather just talk to himself.
Beyond Dreaming is a forum for people who believe in the supernatural, and people who don't believe in the supernatural have been asked not to post. This is a forum dedicated to Science. If you don't believe in science and you want to apply those rules, then you are the one who doesn't belong here, not those of us who do.
ive never thought about this before, but its a good point to think about.
i reckon it would have just been a few integers, not all the real numbers, i just doubt people from that long ago would have thought that it is possible to have infinate amount of numbers.
In space, as invisible, nonmaterial geometric figures. A circle is the set of points in one plane equidistant from one point. Do you want to argue that the entire course of geometry is a crock of shit?
Yeah, that's it. Or maybe I want to talk to people who believe numbers exist and want to discuss possible answers to the title of this thread? The topic of the thread is not, "Do numbers exist?".
I don't have a problem with the fact that people said numbers don't exist. I just don't want that to become the major thread topic. Get it? :roll:
I was talking about this thread, not the forum itself. Did you at some point take lessons on how to completely miss the point of an analogy? If so, they taught you well.
Nothing exists unless it can be observed. :P
No, I would argue the entire course of geometry is a very useful human concept. Reality does not contain points except as we conceive of them. I think the only point on which you and I disagree is that you seem to disregard human conception as part of reality, and I don't. I believe numbers are real, and so are circles, but not outside the concepts we have created (barring the possibility that other sentient creatures have created the same concepts).
I think what people are saying is that numbers do not exist independently from our concept of them, not that they don't exist at all. We have conceived numbers, therefore they exist. There existence as we know them arose when we conceived of them. You seem to be trying to argue that they are an intrinsic part of reality, but they aren't; or at least no one agrees with you so far. If thats what you would like to discuss, thats fine; but it seems like you will be doing it alone.
You do get awful pissy when people disagree with you, don't you?
Can you guys shut up about pi now? It's the circumference of a random circle divided by the diameter of that circle. (all in this space-timecontinuum) There. This thread was about first numbers!
One upto five, probably, and from that most other numbers were made. By the way, the babyloniërs used 60 number symbols, instead of the 10 we use now :P