Do numbers exist in nature or are they human contructs?

[PsychoSerenity]

In my opinion, numbers, and all the relationships between them, exist independently of human discovery.

The ratio between the radius and the circumference of the circle, 2 times Pi, exists in the universe whether some clever ancient Greeks described the phenomenon or not.

Intelligent aliens would recognise exactly the same irrational number, whatever language they used to describe it.

Cicadas can count to prime numbers. The Fibonacci sequence is exhibited in sunflower seed-heads. The gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Planck's constant, and c or rather, the mathematical relationships between them and which they represent) exist with or without human knowledge and would be discovered by any species investigating the universe.

But they wouldn't be discovered by rocks.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

In my opinion, numbers, and all the relationships between them, exist independently of human discovery.

The ratio between the radius and the circumference of the circle, 2 times Pi, exists in the universe whether some clever ancient Greeks described the phenomenon or not.

Intelligent aliens would recognise exactly the same irrational number, whatever language they used to describe it.

Cicadas can count to prime numbers. The Fibonacci sequence is exhibited in sunflower seed-heads. The gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Planck's constant, and c or rather, the mathematical relationships between them and which they represent) exist with or without human knowledge and would be discovered by any species investigating the universe.

But they wouldn't be discovered by rocks.

Without them, there would BE no rocks.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Not to mention the relative strengths of the 4 fundamental forces and the relative masses of the fundamental particles - exact numerical values that are essential for the universe being the way it is - adjust any of these by a fraction of a percent and there would be no matter and hence no life. And then there are the quantum relationships - spin, charge, etc...

[JimC]

In my opinion, numbers, and all the relationships between them, exist independently of human discovery.

The ratio between the radius and the circumference of the circle, 2 times Pi, exists in the universe whether some clever ancient Greeks described the phenomenon or not.

Intelligent aliens would recognise exactly the same irrational number, whatever language they used to describe it.

Cicadas can count to prime numbers. The Fibonacci sequence is exhibited in sunflower seed-heads. The gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Planck's constant, and c or rather, the mathematical relationships between them and which they represent) exist with or without human knowledge and would be discovered by any species investigating the universe.

Agreed. Perhaps the only question revolves around the semantics of the term "exist". Matter, energy, and perhaps space time itself exist in a fairly "concrete" fashion. Numbers, and the relationships between them, have a more abstract form of existence. Both forms of existence have validity, but their properties are not identical.

There are physicists who say that the physical universe itself is, in some way, a manifestation of an underlying universe of pure numbers. Not sure I go that far...

[FBM]

I've thought about this long and hard and have become comfortable with the basic logical quadrilemma: yes, no, both yes and no, neither yes nor no.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I've thought about this long and hard and have become comfortable with the basic logical quadrilemma: yes, no, both yes and no, neither yes nor no.

A situation that cannot exist without the existence of the number 4.

[Gallstones]

Humans constructed numbers and numerals but not math. They discovered math.

[FBM]

I've thought about this long and hard and have become comfortable with the basic logical quadrilemma: yes, no, both yes and no, neither yes nor no.

A situation that cannot exist without the existence of the number 4.

What is a 4 made of, btw? Something different from what a 3 is made of, I'd assume?

[JimC]

Humans constructed numbers and numerals but not math. They discovered math.

Well, they constructed the symbols and words for numbers and numerals, but they were and are merely descriptors for a generalised property that individual things can be counted. It was simply a reflection that a group of 5 rocks on one hillside shared an important property with five trees on the opposite hillside. This was true whether early humans put symbols to the count or not...

[Jason]

Fingers, thumbs and toes.

[JimC]

Fingers, thumbs and toes.

For males, add eyes, ears, nostrils, prick and balls and you've reached 29!

Absolutely prime!

[Jason]

420 is not a prime.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

420 is not a prime.

Neither is Wednesday. Or yellow.

[FBM]

Here's a pretty good introduction to the debate:

[Audley Strange]

In my opinion, numbers, and all the relationships between them, exist independently of human discovery.

The ratio between the radius and the circumference of the circle, 2 times Pi, exists in the universe whether some clever ancient Greeks described the phenomenon or not.

Intelligent aliens would recognise exactly the same irrational number, whatever language they used to describe it.

Cicadas can count to prime numbers. The Fibonacci sequence is exhibited in sunflower seed-heads. The gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Planck's constant, and c or rather, the mathematical relationships between them and which they represent) exist with or without human knowledge and would be discovered by any species investigating the universe.

Agreed. Perhaps the only question revolves around the semantics of the term "exist". Matter, energy, and perhaps space time itself exist in a fairly "concrete" fashion. Numbers, and the relationships between them, have a more abstract form of existence. Both forms of existence have validity, but their properties are not identical.

There are physicists who say that the physical universe itself is, in some way, a manifestation of an underlying universe of pure numbers. Not sure I go that far...

Which brings us back to the question I posited about whether Pythagorus Theorem pertaining to an actual domain of platonic forms or just arbitrary extrapolation of pattern recognition.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... pythagoras.

Was a good topic.