Just yesterday I was thinking about it. Who will decide we are not using circular reasonings for these seemingly nonsensical things (to my non math loving brain).
I read a proof of why 2 is greater than 1 and I have forgotten about it but I just don't like such things. Why are we proving definitions and who will keep out the circular reasonings when math is being built from the ground up. I view math ppl with lot of suspicion because they have intuition and they don't explain but who would say that their collective intuition is wrong (if it is). That's tyrannical for the non math people
At the core, we've decided how math should work because it solves practical problems. Two is larger than one because if I have two oranges, I have more than if I had one.
We could have decided on things working entirely differently, and there are people who explore those topics[1].
I have it too, though I have given it a different explanation.
Reality is not a counted number of things, it is the “potential” of all things, broken down into the most economically scalar interactive pieces, and sure we can use numbers to count those.
“Potential distribution” nerds, get that right.
It is “whatever there is by how ever many there are” not n many {n}s.
Go watch YouTube videos on quaternions brother. Do not see it for “the math”, see it for “one layer translating upon another layer.”
Whatever it is man. If you think “discrete” number of things make up reality, you are delusional. It is potential divided. That is reality.
Just yesterday I was thinking about it. Who will decide we are not using circular reasonings for these seemingly nonsensical things (to my non math loving brain). I read a proof of why 2 is greater than 1 and I have forgotten about it but I just don't like such things. Why are we proving definitions and who will keep out the circular reasonings when math is being built from the ground up. I view math ppl with lot of suspicion because they have intuition and they don't explain but who would say that their collective intuition is wrong (if it is). That's tyrannical for the non math people
At the core, we've decided how math should work because it solves practical problems. Two is larger than one because if I have two oranges, I have more than if I had one.
We could have decided on things working entirely differently, and there are people who explore those topics[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Nonstandard_model...
Yes!
You have a valid unsettled intuition!
I have it too, though I have given it a different explanation.
Reality is not a counted number of things, it is the “potential” of all things, broken down into the most economically scalar interactive pieces, and sure we can use numbers to count those.
“Potential distribution” nerds, get that right.
It is “whatever there is by how ever many there are” not n many {n}s.
Go watch YouTube videos on quaternions brother. Do not see it for “the math”, see it for “one layer translating upon another layer.”
Whatever it is man. If you think “discrete” number of things make up reality, you are delusional. It is potential divided. That is reality.