
Which don't actually exist as they are made from imaginary units.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:03,
archived)

/did a module in the metaphysics of maths blog
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:04,
archived)

You can count out a real number of items, or use them to establish quantity or distance.
4+3i Chestnuts on the other hand makes no sense whatsoever.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:05,
archived)
4+3i Chestnuts on the other hand makes no sense whatsoever.

but you can't isolate a number.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:07,
archived)

But he had no real roots.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:08,
archived)

but generally speaking numbers are just concepts.
Can't experience the number three after all... can only apply it.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:09,
archived)
Can't experience the number three after all... can only apply it.

they're just a handy manmade construct.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:11,
archived)

Isn't to say that it doesn't exist though.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:17,
archived)

I mean made up by man to help explain the world.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:19,
archived)

Einstein's special relativity was an explanation of how the universe interacts, so presumably it doesn't exist. Anyway i'm being facetious now.
Numbers are to objects what letters are to sounds. The numbers and letters as them self don't really mean much, but their link to sounds, words, quantities or distances gives them their meaning and conceptual value.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:21,
archived)
Numbers are to objects what letters are to sounds. The numbers and letters as them self don't really mean much, but their link to sounds, words, quantities or distances gives them their meaning and conceptual value.

It's just a way for us to explain what happens in the outside world.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:33,
archived)

Almost all known fields hinge on some vitally arbitrary measure, whether that be numbers or letters or words, both maths and physics could no doubt be rethought it completely different ways with nothing which even resembles numbers. But it would still be the same expression just using different measures.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:40,
archived)

You seem to be agreeing with me now that numbers are useful, but made-up things.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:43,
archived)

But nonetheless is all made up. I don't think it's just numbers.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:46,
archived)

This is strange. I don't think I've agreed with anyone on b3ta before.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:48,
archived)

*nods gravely*
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:55,
archived)

where "reality" is "the brain's interpretation of the signals provided by the body's sensory apparatus"
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:41,
archived)

That's a useful thing to know about, because it can undermine basically any argument.
I know I've pissed off a few people with it in the past.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:44,
archived)
I know I've pissed off a few people with it in the past.

Anyone who doesn't believe in other people is possibly dangerous
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 18:58,
archived)

But i'm afraid I can't because you don't exist.
I think even the most hardened of Solipsists don't actually think that other people don't exist, because that would be a blatant assumption on par with god like faith. They can never be sure, and they can never really know if other people experience the same degree of consciousness they do, nor if anything they see or interact with is a real representation of reality.
I wouldn't say they are dangerous though, the philosophical types tend to be quite depressive and non influential in the greater scheme of things.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 19:05,
archived)
I think even the most hardened of Solipsists don't actually think that other people don't exist, because that would be a blatant assumption on par with god like faith. They can never be sure, and they can never really know if other people experience the same degree of consciousness they do, nor if anything they see or interact with is a real representation of reality.
I wouldn't say they are dangerous though, the philosophical types tend to be quite depressive and non influential in the greater scheme of things.

I'm quite fond of the solipsistic view myself, as long as one doesn't cross a certain border. It's always good to bear in mind that the world we perceive is literally virtual to an extent, but one should nonetheless accept it as 'reality' in everyday life.
( ,
Tue 1 Apr 2008, 19:17,
archived)