Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider?
Printable View
Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider?
Well with the concept of any number, all others are neccessary.
Its one big tautology is mathematics, don't ya know.
I thought I recall reading that india had the first real numbers system. too busy to look it up right now tho
I'm not talking about the symbols. I'm talking about what the symbols represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
My guess would be that the first number was the number "1", used to describe having just above "none" of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I'd say different. The idea of 1 on its own serves no purpose at all. I think the natural numbers would have all been developed simultaneously. Most likely they would have been a small set at first; I'd hazard a fairly certain guess at 10 (a different word for each finger).
The concept of numbers of numbers (such as ten tens, as is used in our modern number system) probably came quite a bit later.
Negatives and rationals would have come next, although it's hard to say in which order. Some of the reals probably came after that (root 2 or pi first)... 0 came quite a bit later. Then e. After that there were the imaginary and complex numbers, probably on the same day. After that came quaternions, finishing with the development of group theory and the generalisation of the concept of number.
Remember... I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about what the symbols represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What exactly do you have in mind in terms of what the symbols represent?
My first inclination is to declare that numbers don't exist in the first place. :P
Are you not reaching for an epistemological debate over the existence of numbers vs semantics? Numbers are used to represent things. Are you saying that "numbers" exist independently of variable representation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
~
Numbers are symbols.Quote:
Remember... I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about what the symbols represent.
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).
This is where I say, "Why didn't they just make pi = 3? Or 1 for that matter? It would be so much easier to use."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
The realities of how many things there are in a given category exist independently of human language. So far, you have left 1 post in this thread. There are all kinds of things we can call that number, but it is what it is.
By they way, hello again. I haven't talked to you in forever, but I keep seeing you in the distance in the hallway. Now here I am and there you are, so... :cheers:
No, I don't want that debate. I just wanted to clarify. But it looks like that debate is inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The number of fingers you have on your right hand is what it is, but we Western humans call it "5" and "five" and "5.00000" and stuff. Without us, it still is what it is. (If you have fewer than five fingers, I apologize.)
UM, the question you're trying to ask is as meaningless as asking what's north of the north pole.
Why? Because numbers are nothing more than bizarre things that humans made up?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Why didn't they just make pi = 1?
pi does equal 1 in some spacetime geometries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Well, in our space-time geometry, why don't we just make pi = 1? Or will it still be the case that the circumference of a circle is 3.14... times its diameter in every single case?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Sure. That doesn't mean it's a number. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe that some numbers "came first". Why couldn't they have all appeared simultaneously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Do you mean the concept of having "none, more than none, many, all"?
What is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
My original post:Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What you talkin' about, Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
Who knows. :D
What was the number 1 number? lol
It's the geometry of a circle.Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
What do the symbols represent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
How many diameters worth of length a circumference is, for one thing. The symbols can represent how many fingers you have on a hand, how many times Earth has been around the sun since you were born, and how many posts are in this thread. Those realities are what they are. Humans just come up with symbols to represent those realities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
So the numbers come into existence as soon as we create the concept of things to count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
One and Two probably came into existence at the same time. The concept of being singular is pretty meaningless without a plurality to compare it to.
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Second.
It wouldn't be a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
No. "Pi" doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
What the words mean did exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.
I forgot to quote you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No, I said it's fundamentally the geometry of a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No, you really haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
You said this...Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
The term "pi" is in the formula you stated. What is pi, according to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Right. Well, just in case you really are lost on what the question is, here is another way of putting it...Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I think it was 8.
I like 8.
We do know what pi is, and you just said what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.
No, I am not saying that. I am just asking a question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes, the question is bizarre because the concept of the origins of reality is bizarre, and I also agree with your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Where do they exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You do get awful pissy when people disagree with you, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
πQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
:rolllaugh:
Haha! You don't exist! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
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 babyloniërs used 60 number symbols, instead of the 10 we use now :P
Where would one find a circle, in the universe? Circles are just approximations. In fact the whole of geometry is an approximation of reality, because Euclid's parallel axiom (that two parallel lines never meet) is actually wrong in our reality.Quote:
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?
If you say that a circle, ie. x2 + y2 = r2, is real, then really, by extension, every other equation is real.
1/2x5 + x4 + x2 + 9x1/2 + x + e = 0
dy/dx + y.tanx = x^-pi
(2 + 9i)x^4 + (1/2 - 5i)x^3 = 11i
[2 x]^2 + I = O
[4 2]
Where are these things real? Why are they real? None of them will approximate perfectly to reality. Most of them will not approximate to reality at all. There will be an infinitude of infinities, each different equation and type of number becoming steadily more and more obscure until they have no meaning at all.
The idea that numbers are 'in space' demands an explanation, too. What exactly do you mean by that? By what distances are these numbers separated? :|
Woes, do we have an internet tough guy in here? I think you need to read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
I said perfect circles are in space, though they do not exist in the form of matter. Use your imagination to outline one. You will be a bit off, but you will be able to capture the fact that it is there, just not in material form. I did not say numbers exist in space. Numbers are metaphysical, not material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
That was my way of saying that you guys got off-topic. I read the thread, but two-third of it isn't relevant for the subject. So start another topic if you want to talk about pi and I don't know whatnot. Just don't do it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I'm not getting in any discussions about this with you or anyone else.
A symbol is very much similar to a name (or are they the same?).
If you want to know if the given quantity exists independently of any human-conceived name for it, consider the existence of a rock if you did not know that it was called a rock, or if there was no word in the universe for a "rock". But imagine that it's right there, in front of you, the way it looks and smells and sounds when you scratch your nail on it. The way it feels. The way it tastes! It exists, right? Now, if there are "5" rocks in front of you, but you have no concept of what five of anything is, would the rocks appear to exist any differently upon the creation of the concept of numbers?
Am I on the right track with this, or did I miss the point entirely?
A name is a symbol, but a symbol and what it represents are not the same, except in the case of symbols like the word symbol.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Thing:
http://www.chevroncarsblog.com/image...low-car_lg.jpg
symbol: car
It would look the same, but your understanding of what you are looking at would be different. A number is not an object, but it can apply to a set of objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Right, your understanding of it would change, but does that effect any of the object's/quantity's real properties? That's what your originally question was, right? Or perhaps you were wondering about whether or not an object/quantity can only mean something once it receives conscious observation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yes. Four of an object and five of the same object look different, even if the observer has never learned or thought about what numbers are.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
No. I was asking about realities that were around long before consciousness. I just asked what the first number was. Really, I don't think there was one. I think all numbers have always existed. I started this thread to see what kinds of answers people would give.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
"Assuming the quantity/object was the same both before and after the observer had any understanding of what the quantity/object is", that's how I ought to have phrased it. The existence of, say, four rocks would not be any different once my understanding of them was altered. The understanding of the symbol might change, but the real quantity/object that the observer is paying attention to isn't going to alter physically in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That answer is made according to a very simplistic understanding of the universe, by the way. Throw quantum theory in there with respect to how an observer effects the reality around themselves, and you'll have another answer. Restrictions apply, results may vary.
I think "that" and "those" were the first number set. Probably "that," since "those" specifies no number, and "that" specifies one (one singular or one group of other things, it;s still one). Or at least whatever translates to those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cusp
Maybe "gone," too.
The number 1 would have had to be the first number.
Because if the fist number to exist was, say, 2, then the only number in existance at that time to describe that number would have been 2, so it would be the 2nd number, and not the first, because "1st" didn't exist yet.
Get it?
The first number had to be one.
Then came zero, because there had to be something to signify when there wasn't one. Then came all the other numbers.
In fact, there may not be any other numbers except 0 and 1, because you can't have one "two." It's just a plural amounts of ones....