Thread: What was the first number?

Originally Posted by Xei

Numbers are symbols.

They represent a quality of a group of objects.

The only question with any sort of meaning related to yours is 'which was the first number which could be correctly applied in the history of the universe to a group of objects'. There is no real answer to this, you could assign all sorts of numbers to different qualities of the beginning of the universe.

The groups of objects which numbers describe are real. The numbers themselves are not real (real in a physical sense, not technical mathematical sense).

Second.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, the geometry of a circle is whatever we decide it is? Use Photoshop or Paint or something to show me a circle with a circumference that is 1 diametric unit. Or, are you pretty much stuck with 3.1415926blahblahblah?

It wouldn't be a circle.

Circle <=> C = pi*D

Originally Posted by drewmandan

It wouldn't be a circle.

Circle <=> C = pi*D

... which is relevant because pi is a fixed amount that humans did not decide on. "It" wouldn't be a circle because pi does not equal 1. Right?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... which is relevant because pi is a fixed amount that humans did not decide on. "It" wouldn't be a circle because pi does not equal 1. Right?

No. "Pi" doesn't exist.

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'.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

No. "Pi" doesn't exist.

You just said it is part of the formula for the circumference of a circle.

Originally Posted by Xei

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'.

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What you talkin' about, Willis?

I forgot to quote you...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Remember... I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about what the symbols represent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You just said it is part of the formula for the circumference of a circle.

No, I said it's fundamentally the geometry of a circle.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you want to have a debate on that, start another thread. I have made it very clear what I am asking.

No, you really haven't.

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.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

I forgot to quote you...

What exactly are you asking?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

No, I said it's fundamentally the geometry of a circle.

You said this...

Originally Posted by drewmandan

It wouldn't be a circle.

Circle <=> C = pi*D

The term "pi" is in the formula you stated. What is pi, according to you?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

No, you really haven't.

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?

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

If that is where you officially stand, then thank you for your time. Good day.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... which is relevant because pi is a fixed amount that humans did not decide on. "It" wouldn't be a circle because pi does not equal 1. Right?

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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.

We do know what pi is, and you just said what it is.

Perfect circles do exist, just not as objects.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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 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.

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

No, I am not saying that. I am just asking a question.

Originally Posted by Xei

Seriously. There is no element of time to a number system. Numbers aren't formed in physical processes. The whole question is bizarre.

Yes, the question is bizarre because the concept of the origins of reality is bizarre, and I also agree with your answer.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We do know what pi is, and you just said what it is.

Perfect circles do exist, just not as objects.

Where do they exist?

Silly gooses, we all know that numbers don't really exist deep down.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Where do they exist?

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?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Apparently, holding that view disqualifies you for participation in this thread. UM would rather just talk to himself.

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?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

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).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

You do get awful pissy when people disagree with you, don't you?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The term "pi" is in the formula you stated. What is pi, according to you?

π

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Nothing exists unless it can be observed.

Haha! You don't exist!


Seriously, I've lost the idea of this thread now... What is going on?

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 babyloni&#235;rs used 60 number symbols, instead of the 10 we use now