Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

Show me the number one in the world.

Don't talk to me of imaginary things that don't exist in the world.

More than one banana exists in the world. Talking about bananas is not a clear demonstration that the number 1 exists in the world. The number 1 is not a banana. The fact that you can't tell the difference is interesting.

There is a difference between "1 banana" and "banana". "One banana adds information that originally comes from outside of the mind.

"1 banana" or "12 banana" is a proposition about a specific set of bananas. That set is only in your mind. You might not be aware of this since the creation of objects and groups of objects is so basal.

 

[ryan]

There is a difference between "1 banana" and "banana". "One banana adds information that originally comes from outside of the mind.

"1 banana" or "12 banana" is a proposition about a specific set of bananas. That set is only in your mind. You might not be aware of this since the creation of objects and groups of objects is so basal.

Everything we know is from sources outside of the mind. When we were young, people had to communicate information to us so that numbers could manifest in our minds.

 

[Juma]

"1 banana" or "12 banana" is a proposition about a specific set of bananas. That set is only in your mind. You might not be aware of this since the creation of objects and groups of objects is so basal.

Everything we know is from sources outside of the mind. When we were young, people had to communicate information to us so that numbers could manifest in our minds.

The information is communicated between two systems of the same type. The protocol is internal to this common system. The concepts "transmitted" are newer outside that system.

 

[ryan]

Everything we know is from sources outside of the mind. When we were young, people had to communicate information to us so that numbers could manifest in our minds.

The information is communicated between two systems of the same type. The protocol is internal to this common system. The concepts "transmitted" are newer outside that system.

Then where did the very first number come from? I think that it would have had to have been a result from something outside of the mind that first invented it.

 

[Juma]

The information is communicated between two systems of the same type. The protocol is internal to this common system. The concepts "transmitted" are newer outside that system.

Then where did the very first number come from? I think that it would have had to have been a result from something outside of the mind that first invented it.

You already forgot? Evolution!

 

[ryan]

Then where did the very first number come from? I think that it would have had to have been a result from something outside of the mind that first invented it.

You already forgot? Evolution!

That was for models.

Are you saying that numbers existed long before the earliest known use of them? If you are, then would you say that numbers started for one or a few different kinds of species?

 

[Juma]

You already forgot? Evolution!

That was for models.

Numbers are a model.

Are you saying that numbers existed long before the earliest known use of them? If you are, then would you say that numbers started for one or a few different kinds of species?

A lot of animals can count. But note that that does not mean that those animals "has" numbers in our meaning of the word. Only that they can handle multitudes which to me suggests that they represents their reality in objects as we do.

 

[ryan]

That was for models.

Numbers are a model.

Are you saying that numbers existed long before the earliest known use of them? If you are, then would you say that numbers started for one or a few different kinds of species?

A lot of animals can count. But note that that does not mean that those animals "has" numbers in our meaning of the word. Only that they can handle multitudes which to me suggests that they represents their reality in objects as we do.

Okay, then was there an original input at some point during evolution? Perhaps there was a certain mutation in the reproductive cells of an individual causing or allowing its offspring to "count", similar to us, for the very first time on Earth.

 

[Juma]

Numbers are a model.

Are you saying that numbers existed long before the earliest known use of them? If you are, then would you say that numbers started for one or a few different kinds of species?

A lot of animals can count. But note that that does not mean that those animals "has" numbers in our meaning of the word. Only that they can handle multitudes which to me suggests that they represents their reality in objects as we do.

Okay, then was there an original input at some point during evolution? Perhaps there was a certain mutation in the reproductive cells of an individual causing or allowing its offspring to "count", similar to us, for the very first time on Earth.

How could it not be like that?

 

[ryan]

Numbers are a model.

Are you saying that numbers existed long before the earliest known use of them? If you are, then would you say that numbers started for one or a few different kinds of species?

A lot of animals can count. But note that that does not mean that those animals "has" numbers in our meaning of the word. Only that they can handle multitudes which to me suggests that they represents their reality in objects as we do.

Okay, then was there an original input at some point during evolution? Perhaps there was a certain mutation in the reproductive cells of an individual causing or allowing its offspring to "count", similar to us, for the very first time on Earth.

How could it not be like that?

So far we have been talking about a number like it is a meme or a disease, and I am following the trail to see how far back the "meme"/number goes.

So if the number is like a disease or meme, then wouldn't it had to have had to originate from someone of something? Who or what is the "host"?

 

[untermensche]

Everything we know is from sources outside of the mind. When we were young, people had to communicate information to us so that numbers could manifest in our minds.

This is a claim that a brain is a blank slate.

There is a lot of evidence that the brain is no such thing. There is a lot of evidence that humans have an innate grammar.

This is a way to process and understand the world that does not come from the world.

We have color. Something else created by the brain that doesn't exist in the world.

We have all of human fiction. Stories of events that never happened in the world.

And numbers. Concepts that don't exist in the world.

The blank slate hypothesis is really an absurd position. The only way we could possible make any sense of the world is by the brain creating that sense.

 

[ryan]

Everything we know is from sources outside of the mind. When we were young, people had to communicate information to us so that numbers could manifest in our minds.

This is a claim that a brain is a blank slate.

There is a lot of evidence that the brain is no such thing. There is a lot of evidence that humans have an innate grammar.

This is a way to process and understand the world that does not come from the world.

We have color. Something else created by the brain that doesn't exist in the world.

We have all of human fiction. Stories of events that never happened in the world.

And numbers. Concepts that don't exist in the world.

The blank slate hypothesis is really an absurd position. The only way we could possible make any sense of the world is by the brain creating that sense.

Do you think that the environment at least influences what we think? That is really all I am saying.

 

[untermensche]

Do you think that the environment at least influences what we think? That is really all I am saying.

In some ways, not in all things.

 

[surreptitious57]

Numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist in reality. Indeed all of mathematics is abstract as
it is a language and language is abstract by definition. So numbers do not exist in the same way that
objects do as they have no property or dimension and do not have to conform to any laws of physics
Although paradoxically they represent objects themselves that do have to. The symbols pertaining to
numbers are human constructs but not the numbers themselves. As mathematics exists independent
of human interpretation as its proofs are not human constructs but universal ones. The ratio between
the circumference of a circle and its diameter for example will always be pi and regardless of whether
or not it is a truth which is only known to humans. Since mathematics is a discovery not an invention

 

[Juma]

Numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist in reality. Indeed all of mathematics is abstract as
it is a language and language is abstract by definition. So numbers do not exist in the same way that
objects do as they have no property or dimension and do not have to conform to any laws of physics
Although paradoxically they represent objects themselves that do have to. The symbols pertaining to
numbers are human constructs but not the numbers themselves. As mathematics exists independent
of human interpretation as its proofs are not human constructs but universal ones. The ratio between
the circumference of a circle and its diameter for example will always be pi and regardless of whether
or not it is a truth which is only known to humans. Since mathematics is a discovery not an invention

But ratio is a concept specific to

 

[untermensche]

Numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist in reality. Indeed all of mathematics is abstract as
it is a language and language is abstract by definition. So numbers do not exist in the same way that
objects do as they have no property or dimension and do not have to conform to any laws of physics
Although paradoxically they represent objects themselves that do have to. The symbols pertaining to
numbers are human constructs but not the numbers themselves. As mathematics exists independent
of human interpretation as its proofs are not human constructs but universal ones. The ratio between
the circumference of a circle and its diameter for example will always be pi and regardless of whether
or not it is a truth which is only known to humans. Since mathematics is a discovery not an invention

First you say that numbers don't exist out in the world, then you say they represent something in the world?

They don't "represent" anything unless a human decides they do. They represent absolutely nothing on their own and they do not point to any specific thing.

All their meaning is what humans impart upon them. On their own numbers are meaningless scribbles.

 

[Juma]

Numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist in reality. Indeed all of mathematics is abstract as
it is a language and language is abstract by definition. So numbers do not exist in the same way that
objects do as they have no property or dimension and do not have to conform to any laws of physics
Although paradoxically they represent objects themselves that do have to. The symbols pertaining to
numbers are human constructs but not the numbers themselves. As mathematics exists independent
of human interpretation as its proofs are not human constructs but universal ones. The ratio between
the circumference of a circle and its diameter for example will always be pi and regardless of whether
or not it is a truth which is only known to humans. Since mathematics is a discovery not an invention

"ratio" is a concept. It doesnt exist outside our brains.

 

[ryan]

Numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist in reality. Indeed all of mathematics is abstract as
it is a language and language is abstract by definition. So numbers do not exist in the same way that
objects do as they have no property or dimension and do not have to conform to any laws of physics
Although paradoxically they represent objects themselves that do have to. The symbols pertaining to
numbers are human constructs but not the numbers themselves. As mathematics exists independent
of human interpretation as its proofs are not human constructs but universal ones. The ratio between
the circumference of a circle and its diameter for example will always be pi and regardless of whether
or not it is a truth which is only known to humans. Since mathematics is a discovery not an invention

"ratio" is a concept. It doesnt exist outside our brains.

The radius is a result of a brain function triggered by something outside of the mind. The source responsible for the trigger is actually the real thing we call "radius".

 

[Juma]

"ratio" is a concept. It doesnt exist outside our brains.

The radius is a result of a brain function triggered by something outside of the mind. The source responsible for the trigger is actually the real thing we call "radius".

There are no "real" radiuses. Radius is a property of a model, not a property of a real thing. (Hint: real things do not have properties)

 

[ryan]

The radius is a result of a brain function triggered by something outside of the mind. The source responsible for the trigger is actually the real thing we call "radius".

(Hint: real things do not have properties)

Yes I tried telling you this a year, or so, ago. Do you remember when I said that properties of objects either don't exist or only exist in the mind?

I assume that the radius of a circle first became known because of measurements made on real objects. Then they made mathematical descriptions that generalized this for any circle. So if the very first radius was discovered from incoming information from the mind's exterior, then it could have went viral to many people like a meme.