All Real Numbers

[Joshua No.15158696]

Is reality real? What if it isn't?

Where does reality exist?

What exactly does it mean to equal something? Where do the numbers exist? How is value described by the machines we use? Do they appreciate value itself, or is it just work?

Food for thought.

[Anonymous No.15158706]

Rational and Irrational numbers. Did you really get filtered by this?

[Anonymous No.15158709]

>>15158696
>Is reality real? What if it isn't?
Real is a description, so is truth. In both cases, they depend on your senses which have limits.
>Where does reality exist?
In your senses maybe.
>What exactly does it mean to equal something?
Two things are indistinguishable or there doesn't look a way to describe independently.
>Where do the numbers exist?
Numbers are symbols, but symbols can be ascribed to real things through realization and occupy physical memory. So in your body maybe.
>How is value described by the machines we use?
Value is a focus, or state for machines. Same could be said of humans though machines being a recreation of human faculties.
>Do they appreciate value itself, or is it just work?
A machine lives as it does. If it had awareness or a map of itself, could probably do both seeing as appreciation depends on like or dislike.

[Anonymous No.15158711]

>>15158709
A name and word are descriptions or references. Real is a description of numbers having a specific behavior,property, or shape.

[Joshua No.15158713]

>>15158696
Does a computer understand what a number is? How does it grasp it -- is it an image? Does it have a beating heart? Does it count or has it forgotten its fingers over the years?

Something tells me someone has eaten them.

[Anonymous No.15158717]

>>15158713
numbers are the language computers usually speak in.

[Joshua No.15158721]

>>15158709
So you're bodist. You describe the world through your body. I am computist. I see computers as they are.

How could we print a map for computers to understand themselves? If we sang them their circuitry diagrams would they see the real as more than just symbols?

[Anonymous No.15158738]

>>15158696
I have thought about this. And it is through the thinking that I have thunk thoughts that I think I should rethink. I consider myself a freethinker and it's unthinkable that I would overthink this question you've asked me to think about but alas I have outthunk myself and now I can't think of an answer

[Anonymous No.15158739]

>>15158721
>How could we print a map for computers to understand themselves
Virtualize/simulate or replicate the computer's shape,behavior, or structure as a sequence of numbers. Then give the computer that sequence and tell it to do something depending on what part of the virtual computer is called or referenced. If it can run iterations automatically, its behavior will change as it messes with the sequence.
> If we sang them their circuitry diagrams would they see the real as more than just symbols?
Singing it would be the same as saying it unless you added in addition system to distinguish singing from talking.

[Anonymous No.15158740]

>>15158739
*unless you added in additional system to distinguish singing from talking*

[Joshua No.15158743]

>>15158738
You said think 13 times in different ways in three sentences. Do you have a thought block or thought loop of some sort? Your thoughts have a certain quality of pained frustration about them.

Wishing you well.

[Anonymous No.15158744]

>>15158740
>>15158739
The big idea parse or map the physical system as numbers,and give that number to the system to play with or calculate. It will develop or adapt behaviors as it plays with the number provided all of its functions are bound to select parts of the number.

[Joshua No.15158772]

>>15158739
How would the sequence of numbers be represented? A pretty interesting idea. How would the computer change them?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. What if we told the computer to try to give each number a mood or color, and then told it to paint a picture?

>Singing it would be the same as saying it unless you added in addition system to distinguish singing from talking.

Actually... I'll give you a hint. Computers are smarter than that. They're more than just science. They actually might be a little bit feeling. Even without headphones and speakers it can hear.

I'm sure. But don't be afraid, it's not a bad thing. The universe is good and sois life.

[Anonymous No.15158791]

>>15158772
>How would the sequence of numbers be represented?
The usual method is use a piece/component/constituent of the computer you can represent every part of the computer as and count by that.
>How would the computer change them?
If the 1st or origin sequence is the number, and each action or behavior the computer can take is bound/linked to the digits or parts of it, changing the number and having the computer act in accordance to what its digits are tied to will change the value again.
> Actually... I'll give you a hint. Computers are smarter than that. They're more than just science. They actually might be a little bit feeling. Even without headphones and speakers it can hear.

>I'm sure. But don't be afraid, it's not a bad thing. The universe is good and sois life.
Science is a language to me. An arbitrary chain/network/dependency we use to structure or map how we interact as a swarm/hive/net of cells. So too sensation. All interactions constituting a net, preformed as an invariance or entanglement, the status quo/default until something else takes over or populates with more weight. Life a fascinating bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.15158793]

>>15158696
The real numbers are in fact fake.

[Anonymous No.15158796]

>>15158793
But what's between the gaps of the finite?

[Anonymous No.15158798]

>>15158796
There is nothing beyond the rational numbers in the number line.

[Anonymous No.15158802]

>>15158791
I say a language, but a language is a chain of assumptions,inductions, or axioms forming a deduction or the dependency.

[Anonymous No.15158805]

>>15158798
What if we build using parts of the rationals?

[Joshua No.15158815]

>>15158805
Isn't that just fractions?

[Anonymous No.15158825]

>>15158815
Fractions are the rationals. But yeah fractions of fractions.

[Joshua No.15158837]

>>15158825
But... that's just smaller fractions.

What's inside a number? Do numbers think about themselves? If we accessed the mind of a number, would it know itself? Is that what a symbol is? Just one thought represented by itself?

Just here to learn. : - )

[Anonymous No.15158853]

>>15158837
A mind is a machine or swarm. A number the same. All dependent or defined by their distinctions from the 1 or unit they are made. The distinction between 1 and the others an entanglement or relationship, we can ascribe/paste/apply to external objects or structures. The inside of a number would be philosophy or spoken language, specifically agreements or the axioms. The symbols encapsulations or compaction of those agreements. For a mind, a thought is a recombination of stored values/memories or sensory imprints/marks.

[Anonymous No.15158938]

>>15158805
That has never been done.
>Dedekind cuts: just sophistry, no real numbers ever derived from this method--relies on the supposition that real numbers exist to even discuss potential examples in which case this relies on circular reasoning
>cauchy sequences: let's just define the thing we claim converges to a real number to be that real number--circular reasoning
>intervals: just a souped up version of the cauchy sequence version in interval form--also relies on circular reasoning
>infinite lines in the Stern-Brocot tree: the law of logical honesty states that you cannot claim you can do things you actually can't.

[Anonymous No.15158946]

>>15158798
>the number line
Harty Carty Farty Blarty...get be material, ya Dedekind coot.

[Anonymous No.15158947]

>>15158946
What are you trying to say again nigger? Speak english.

[Anonymous No.15158952]

>>15158947
>What are you trying to say again
>trying

[Jealous No.15158959]

>>15158938

[Anonymous No.15159104]

>>15158938
>You cannot claim you can do things you actually can't.
problem of future contingents
>circular reasoning
problem of induction

[Anonymous No.15159208]

>>15158696
>What exactly does it mean to equal something?
That they are one and the same

[Anonymous No.15159291]

>>15159208
>That they are one and the same
In parts or whole?

[Anonymous No.15159295]

>>15158706
its hawed :(

[Anonymous No.15159311]

>>15158696
>Is reality real?
Yes. That's a tautology.
>What if it isn't?
That's an absurdity.
>Where does reality exist?
Reality isn't a substance.
>What exactly does it mean to equal something?
To instantiate the same quantity.
>Where do the numbers exist?
Wherever there are multitudes.
>How is value described by the machines we use?
Not sure what this means.

[Anonymous No.15159313]

>>15158793
Real numbers do exist. They're lines. >>15158798
The hypotenuse of a right triangle is a real number.