Welcome a new staff member

God is non-contingent, e.g. "necessary". If God is real, He cannot not exist. It's in God's nature to exist.

All I'm saying is that all concepts and potentialities (such as the number 2) are also necessary beings.

Numbers, and all other concepts, are necessary beings, i.e. if nothing material existed, they'd still exist as potentialities.

This means that if God is real (and therefore non-contingent), He is no more or no less necessary than numbers, which is weird.

Numbers as we know them (1, 2, 3...etc.) are constructs meant to represent those potentialities. We didn't have to pick a system such as 1, 2, 3...etc. We could have used different ideas to present the concept of value and multiplicity.


Btw, I'm not talking about base-10 or whatever. Base-10, base-2, base-8, and so on are all merely different forms of the same construct. Humans just naturally started using these systems to represent the concept that we know as numbers.

wait.. how did this all start?

Well Debbie, someone decided they wanted to be able to count things and....

Just kidding, I have no idea how we got on this subject. I suspect it was my fault though. Or Sam's.

I've always been interested in math with an alternate basis. Apparently arithmetic is supposed to be easier in base 64 somehow. At least I think thats the number it was.

Wow, that's weird hock: I am interested in finding this out in detail.

Numbers as we know them (1, 2, 3...etc.) are constructs meant to represent those potentialities. We didn't have to pick a system such as 1, 2, 3...etc. We could have used different ideas to present the concept of value and multiplicity.


Btw, I'm not talking about base-10 or whatever. Base-10, base-2, base-8, and so on are all merely different forms of the same construct. Humans just naturally started using these systems to represent the concept that we know as numbers.

This is essentially where I'm getting at, but well-explained

Thing is though, are the concepts of value and multiplicity inherent to the universe or just made up in our heads? As in, clearly numbers are our representation of these concepts, but were the concepts themselves "discovered" or "invented", so to speak? I'm just curious what you guys think (I can't remember what the proper names of each side of the debate are called).

I'm fairly certain they were discovered, as those concepts exist regardless of whether minds are there to come up with them.

See, I think they were invented. I think numbers are part of an abstract universe of mathematics which we invented, which only happens to correspond to reality partly because we intended it to and partly because we just got lucky.

I'm fairly certain they were discovered, as those concepts exist regardless of whether minds are there to come up with them.

Yes, which is also why no one creates music, they merely discover it. All possible combinations of soundwaves already exists as a potential, and musiciancs merely choose which ones to play.

See, I think they were invented. I think numbers are part of an abstract universe of mathematics which we invented, which only happens to correspond to reality partly because we intended it to and partly because we just got lucky.

To be more serious than with Varg; that does raise the question of whether all of it was invented at once* - as the rules were created and thus all potential "discoveries" were already solidified - or when they were "discovered". Discovered here being used to refer to when humans first gained knowledge of them.
I'm not really sure if I'm communicating my question properly, but whatevs. Also, I think this issue might be more caused by language than the concepts it's trying to refer to. In the physical world, the distinction between discovery and creation is rather distinct, but I'm not sure if this is the case in thoughtspace (actual english word for this, plx?)

Fun fact: Invent is derived from a latin word for discovery.

*Ignoring different branches of mathematics

Basically, it's a philosophical minefield and my head hurts from the sheer magnitude of it all.