Are Numbers Real?

[Fireball]

God is every number.

God is a fucking zero.

Zero is mathematically a placeholder, so has some use. If you use the mathematical notation for the empty set, that is { }  Ain't nothin' in there! [/mathematical quibble]

[ignoramus]

Fireball, would it be accurate to say that God has an equal standing with mathematics?

In that they are all intangible constructs of the mind?

[The Valkyrie]

Nope.

Numbers are made up and should be ignored.

Like gods.

[brewer]

---

God is every number.

The most important perspective, is that he is One.

But from another perspective, he is Yin/Yang, Sheer Majesty/Sheer Beauty, Compassionate/Wrathful... so in this regard he told Angels "do not take two gods...", but rather they should be seen in that, the division is due limitations of creation and how he relates to us while he is One.

As for why he is 3, it's because he appears at a distance (star), lights the way (moon), and brightens the day (sun), and so the parables of light took on these three forms in holy scriptures.

As for why he is 4,  it's because he is exalted from four different perspectives, four different mountains, and this fills the basis of his right to be worshipped, and if we exalt the chosen ones in those 4 respects or any of them with equality to God, we've lost our way, and this forms the basis of Taqwa.

Four exalting grounds to God, is seeking his pleasure, adorning oneself with his worship, courage should be to the degree we fear no other then Him and fear Him alone, and prefer purity and his pure word over the unclean word, lest we mix our worship with Satan.


This is the foundation of triumph of victory and so the foundations of his religion rest upon it, and God as the foundation of society is four.

And numbers all can account for a title of God and how he relates to creation through it.  

7 is the veils between God and creation. 70 is another expression of that. 70 000 is another. So 7 pertains to how he is veiled.

10 is the walking feet of God and pertains to how he helps us stabilize our feet, we take 1 step, he brings us 10 forward through it.


I think every number, God someway is that, but from a specific parable title.

---

Way to fuckin ruin a thread. Good job.

[Minimalist]

God is a fucking zero.

Zero is mathematically a placeholder, so has some use. If you use the mathematical notation for the empty set, that is { }  Ain't nothin' in there! [/mathematical quibble]

I never liked math.

[no one]

People are divided in their love for math.

[Reltzik]

I suppose there's two ways (at least) to look at it.

In the first, numbers are a conceptual model depicting an attribute or pattern related to quantity. They're imaginary. They are not physically real in and of themselves (beyond their status as concepts in peoples' heads and on paper), but the model can correspond to something in reality even if the model is itself just a model. But it doesn't have to. Imagine a really large number... say, a googol raised to the power of a googol, which I'll call a fifi because why the hell not. A fifi might NOT have any real-world equivalent. It might be more than the number of quarks or planck lengths that exist in the entire universe. The number fifi would still exist, now that I've defined the concept. But the pattern of quantity it depicts would not exist.

In the second, numbers are directly the patterns of quantity, and not just a model of the pattern of quantity. Two feet, two wheels, two turtledoves, two everything, all of these share the quality of two-ness in the same empirical, objective way that certain frequencies of light have the quality of green-ness and certain chemicals have the quality of sweet-ness. Here, numbers exist when some measure of some real object or objects displays them. A number like the fifi quite possibly would not exist.

The debate over which of these two views is correct would, I'm pretty sure, be semantic.

tl;dr: Numbers are imaginary and also real. It's complex.

[RoadRunner79]

During a discussion of moral realism in the philosophy subforums, I was reminded that (like ethics) the status of mathematics has been brought into question as an objective enterprise that can produce truth statements.

What say you? Are numbers real? If so, in what way are they real?

I’m a little torn on the issue. On one hand, I see a number of bad arguments that are used with the topic of objective morality, to say that they are not. And I do not think that we can arbitrarily change them. On the other hand, I think that there are some good arguments against; even if not definitive.

I’m on the fence, but lean quite a bit towards numbers/mathematics being real and something which is discovered, rather than made up.

[Aliza]

Nope.

Numbers are made up and should be ignored.

Like gods.

Let's test it out. I'll provide you with a bank account number and you can transfer over the "made up" numbers from your paycheck. If they transfer, then we have evidence that numbers are not made up and should not be ignored.

... but if you like, we can retest biweekly and check our results.

[Fireball]

People are divided in their love for math.

Does that add or subtract from their ability to understand it?