How can irrational numbers co-exist with a materialist view of

>>8287756
shut the fuck up

>>8287776
this desu baka

>>8287756
The word "irrational number" is just a symbol to... represent the set of irrational numbers (generally).
Because it is a symbol it by definition is not the thing it represents.
You are using English.
I can use the n looking Pi symbol.
Another person may attempt to write down each and every digit of pi..............
Either way they are just symbols to represent an idea. An idea that itself is ALSO a symbol that represents different parts of reality.
You are using a symbol to represent a symbol of reality. The idea is very real. However the idea does not perfectly represent the real world because if it did then it would by definition be the real world. Pi would not be pi.

I wish people would use the stupid questions threads for things like this, but I guess people who ask shit like this are too dumb to know that they're asking a dumb question. So instead threads like these clog up the board and all you get in /sqt/ are real questions that I usually can't answer and that makes me feel stupid. :^(

>>8287800
Pi is not real and does not exist within this Universe

How can a human conceptualize an idea that doesn't exist within our Universe?

>>8287825
Generalizations.
Can not comprehend all the parts of a car and can still drive it.
Digging into psycho-philosophy though.

File: spongebob_imagination_by_kssael_display[1].jpg (51KB, 584x412px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 584x412px

>>8287825
>How can a human conceptualize an idea that doesn't exist within our Universe?

>>8287849
>>8287841
If you define math as the relations between objects in the universe (im not aware of any alternate definition of math) then how can someone who is a subset of that set of math be able to conceptualize a non-real idea that does not exist within the universe.

Take the example of: Say a human is born inside of a completely dark box with no doors or windows and its mother dies in child birth. That human would never be able to conceptualize light because there is no such thing as "light" inside of that box.

How can humans discover concepts like Pi when Pi does not exist within our "box"?

File: wildburger.png (195KB, 1650x1050px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1650x1050px

>>8287756

>>8287861
>If you define math as the relations between objects in the universe
No mathematician would define math this way. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics

>Take the example of: Say a human is born inside of a completely dark box with no doors or windows and its mother dies in child birth. That human would never be able to conceptualize light because there is no such thing as "light" inside of that box.
Why not? Your entire argument is self defeating considering you just *imagined* something that doesn't actually exist in order to make your point. The inability to distinguish between the physical and the conceptual is a major source of flaws in ultra-finitist thinking.

>How can humans discover concepts like Pi when Pi does not exist within our "box"?
You just answered your own question. Pi is a concept. It doesn't exist physically in and of itself. So it was never "discovered" in the first place.

>>8287882
>why not?

you are unable to observe the phenomena of light if the entirety of your existence was in a box with no light

>>8287756
Some irrationals can exist but only a countable number.

>>8287896
>you are unable to observe the phenomena of light if the entirety of your existence was in a box with no light
We aren't talking about observing light, we are talking about conceptualizing light.

>>8288077
how could someone conceptualize light without observing it?

>>8288088
How could we conceptualize a circle without observing one? A circle is just a generalization or idealization based on geometric primitives. Light could be conceptualized as a generalization of particles or sound. For example, the blind man could bounce a ball in his room and observe where it hit him. Or he could observe how sound traveled. Light can and has been conceptualized as a particle or wave, and you don't need to actually see light or know of its existence to do this.

>>8288101
a ball is not light

you're using circular reasoning

>>8288117
I didn't say a ball is light, I said that a ball is like light in some sense. This is the basis for a generalization.

>>8288088
Humans evolved to know and understand light. In the absence of it, we imagine it. Even people who are blind from birth dream with images.

Humans are able to just "get" certain things. Said person, in that box, would eventually learn to walk despite not needing to and never having walked before. Because that's what we do. Similarly, we can imagine a perfect circle even having never seen anything round before, just because. Human imagination is very powerful.

>>8288088
Maxwell's equations. They could be invented by purely fucking around in the space of vector field equations, and investigation of their properties would yield the properties of light, even in a universe without an electromagnetic field.