Everything is number

[Anonymous No.20215364]

Is there any philosopher that explain this idea that everything that exist, we perceive and feel, are cumulative and therefore numerical, and we are ruled by this system?

[Anonymous No.20215375]

>>20215364
that’s retarded

[Anonymous No.20215378]

>>20215364
Pythagoreans

[Anonymous No.20215398]

>>20215364
watch pi.

[Anonymous No.20215408]

>>20215364
yes. multiple.

I cant remember atm, but was leibnitz like this, might be misremembering. anyways, yes the idea sounds familiar.

[Anonymous No.20215409]

>>20215364
Based. /lit/tards kneel before the math chads

[Anonymous No.20215540]

>>20215408
Leibniz had a weird take on Monism iirc, was that rooted in what OP describes?

[Anonymous No.20215800]

>>20215364
No, because numbers are only symbols. You can represent reality with numbers, but number's themselves don't exist any more than words or 'images' do. Don't believe me? Argue with math nerds over which Base is better. (btw. It's base 12)

[Anonymous No.20215841]

>>20215800
He means the struture which numbers exemplify, where number refers to a place in this abstract structure.

[Anonymous No.20215851]

>>20215364
Nothing is sacred and everything can be reduced to numbers.

https://sad-pony-mathematician.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous No.20215853]

>>20215364
max tegmark

[Anonymous No.20215863]

>>20215364
The map isn't the territory

[Anonymous No.20215868]

>>20215853
This

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.20215870]

>>20215364
Read any book on the theory of computation.

[Anonymous No.20215891]

>>20215841
>He means...
No

[Anonymous No.20216944]

>>20215800
How I love it when people jump into a 3000 years old philosophical discussion, don't know fucking shit about anything and nevertheless, believe their ignorant mindfarts are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

>Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

>Many working mathematicians have been mathematical realists; they see themselves as discoverers of naturally occurring objects. Examples include Paul Erdős and Kurt Gödel. Gödel believed in an objective mathematical reality that could be perceived in a manner analogous to sense perception. Certain principles (e.g., for any two objects, there is a collection of objects consisting of precisely those two objects) could be directly seen to be true, but the continuum hypothesis conjecture might prove undecidable just on the basis of such principles. Gödel suggested that quasi-empirical methodology could be used to provide sufficient evidence to be able to reasonably assume such a conjecture.

>Within realism, there are distinctions depending on what sort of existence one takes mathematical entities to have, and how we know about them. Major forms of mathematical realism include Platonism and Aristotelianism.

[Anonymous No.20216952]

You guys realize humans invented numbers right?

[Anonymous No.20216962]

>>20216952
Do we invent the colour of a thing or do we find it?

[Anonymous No.20216976]

>>20216962
I mean you could reasonably argue that it's both or neither.
But as for numbers you can't find them anywhere, it's purely a concept that exists in your mind. This I think can't be argued.

[Anonymous No.20217003]

>>20216976
Colours only exist in your mind, too. There are no colours outside of our minds.

>This I think can't be argued
That's exactly what happens for at least 3000 years. For example see: >>20215868 or: >>20216944

[Anonymous No.20217018]

>>20216976
"Everything is number" is said to be the literal slogan of the Pythagoreans.

[Anonymous No.20217024]

>>20215800
An actual moron. The best base is base 10 because it's what everyone's used to. If we had to change, Base 6 would be better than base 12 because it's easier to go from 10 to 6 than 10 to 12, and 6 has several advantages 12 doesn't. With that said, being "unable to have a terminating decimal expression for 1/3 in base 10" is such a retarded reason to swap, who actually gives a fuck? If you're good at maths, and you know goodly how to number manipulation, then it makes no difference if you write 1/3 as "0.3 (dot)" or "0.4" or "0.2" or "0.0100100100...". All the same. I'm not changing how I do numbers just to appease some retards who can't add and multiply basic expressions in their head.

>>20215364
You're very close, but I'd go one step above that. Everything is just sets, not even simply numbers (since numbers are sets). I would suggest reading into set theory, particularly in the construction of sets. Once you get to the universal set, you realise that numbers aren't enough. Another anon mentioned Godel, he's a good start, the incompleteness theorem is relatively easy to wrap your head around, there might be videos online about it now, I'm not sure.

Anyway, to give a tl;dr for how everything can be built from sets, consider the following

>Either there is nothing, or there is something
>If there is nothing, then, by human reasoning, we assume there must be something inside of which nothing is "existing"
>Therefore the existence of nothing implies the existence of nothing is technically something
>Therefore there cannot be nothing, so there is something
>Let's start with the most empty something we can think of, mainly "Nothing"
>"Nothing" is infinite in its nothingness, and yet it is contained
>We call this contained 'nothingness' the empty set. It's the set containing nothing, and it is, strictly speaking, something
>We denote the empty set as {}
>If there is a set containing nothing, then there is something within which this set is contained
>That is, we can have the set containing the set containing nothing: {{}}
>We can build up more and more sets in this order, we can have the set containing nothing, and the set containing the set containing nothing, both in the same set: {{},{{}}}
>Let's continue building in this way, and put them all in a set: {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, ...}
>Hey, writing this all out is tedious, let's rename the sets so that "{}" is 1, "{{}}" is 2 (since 1 fits into 2), {{}, {{}}} is 3 (since 2 and 1 both fit into 3), {{}}, {{}, {{}}}} is 4 (as before) and so on
>Oh cool, I've basically shown that the natural numbers come about as a direct result of 'nothingness'
>Oh cool, I can just rename these individual sets in particular ways to get all the integers, or all the rational numbers (see: isomorphisms and cardinality)
>So far I've created 3 sets of infinite numbers, all out of nothing

More complicated ideas go on to generate an entire universe (maths) out of sets.

[Anonymous No.20217042]

>>20215364
Not this idea literally, but Baudrillard projects the same kind of overacademized word salad as one who might mathematize and dehumanize everything.

[Anonymous No.20217063]

>>20217003
>Colours only exist in your mind, too. There are no colours outside of our minds.
Well that is technically true but light is what creates color and light certainly exists outside of our minds. The difference to me I guess is that our eyes are built to perceive light as color without us having to do anything at all. We don't think about it, it just happens and the same is true of all other animals with eyes even if they perceive colors differently. In that sense they are inherent, there is no turning it on or off at will, and so for all intents and purposes you might as well say colors do "exist". But numbers are different. You have to do a lot more thinking to come up with and use numbers and pretty much only humans can do it. A number is something that can only exist in your head and with clear intention.

[Anonymous No.20217084]

>>20215398
Great film

[Anonymous No.20217088]

>>20215364
Not sure, but Aristotle spends at least a hundred pages debunking it in Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.20217133]

>>20215841
>He means the struture which numbers exemplify
Which is what exactly? There are a bunch of structures that numbers exemplify. Plane geometry, algebraic symmetries, set theories, etc. All of these are not derived from numbers, but from other ideas (structures), numbers are used as their abstract basis but not their real basis, as you just admitted, because units (numbers), ignoring the base notation system, are not the substantial (opposed to theoretical) elements of these systems. We find instantiations of some of these structures as accidents throughout reality, but we find no essential reason for them, only contingent reasons. The whole point of first philosophy, which is what OP is referencing, is to find first principles. If mathematical structures exist as contingent features of our world (which might be interesting per se, yet not essential), that means they are not first principles but only the products of more fundamental principles which gives rise to the appearance or analogy of number. More proof of this fact is that number is never ever considered substantial in itself, it is only ever considered important when related to some concrete feature of existence. If the Fibonacci sequence did not occur in animal populations or other physical phenomena, no one would consider it a particularly remarkable sequence, just as there are countless other sequences which no one particularly cares for except a few mathematicians who specialize in that field. This leads us to believe that the substance is not number but something else.

[Anonymous No.20217216]

>>20215364
If you can find Hans Jonas Phenomenon of Life on libgen, check out the essay 'Is God a Mathematician?'

[Anonymous No.20217224]

>>20215364
Khlebnikov + Reghini

[Anonymous No.20218125]

>>20216952
but zeno says you can't complete a task until 1/2 of it is complete and you can't complete that 1/2 task until 1/4 is complete so on infinitum. As if arbitrary numbers have retroactive powers of compulsion over matter. How easily math cucks are logic locked into an opinion.

[Anonymous No.20218171]

>>20215398
Mid film

[Anonymous No.20218206]

>>20218125
Zeno's paradox is easily solved with calculus. The sum of the infinite series 1/2+1/4+1/8... is 1

[Anonymous No.20218224]

>>20215364

The Kabbalah tradition, the I Ching, Pythagoreans, Plato, Leibniz.

In more modern philosophy of science its what is called "mathematical Platonism" initiated by Frege, ist more or less the default "agnostic" metaphysical position that mathematicians take that don't want to argue about numbers as metaphysical entities.

[Anonymous No.20218269]

>>20218206
>solved
there was no problem to begin with
>it just is OK
show your working.

[Anonymous No.20219041]

>>20216952
Numbers don't even matter by themselves. The structure of a field is what makes all the shit work. It's basically an ordered list. Are you trying to tell me that I can't order objects by size? Did I also just make that up?