Only numbers representing tangible, finite objects exist. Prove

>>8427279
Natural numbers represent discrete countable tangibles.

Integers extend that representation to nothing and debts of tangibles.

Rationals allow for fractions of tangibles.

Real numbers represent continuous tangibles like time and temperature.

Complex numbers represent tangible state variables in a linear AC circuit environment.

Okay looks like we've got everything.

>>8427279
>Only numbers representing tangible, finite objects exist
No they don't. Your image was right, numbers don't exist.

Math certainly was inspired by nature, and you can apply the concept of numbers to real life things.
But math is purely conceptual and build upon axioms, created by humans.

>>8427279

Numbers only exist insofar as they are ideas. Finite numbers correspond directly to objects in the real world. Infinite numbers perhaps only correspond to other ideas, such as how many finite numbers there are. They're both still ideas.

Alternatively, no numbers exist because it's all just a symbol manipulation game.

>>8427279
>n

>>8427288
Transcendentals...

>there's no physical reality to concepts and abstractions
WOW REALLY HOLY FUCK WHAT A REVELATION

>>8427615
You say this like it's obvious. But in reality a lot of people will argue against you.

>>8427621
That's depressing.

>>8427615
You seem to be a little bit too sure about what is true or not.

For greek philsophers, Ideas actually existed and were perfect and permanently existed. Even more: they were the shapes of the actual, physical world. For instance, Plato's theory is called Theory of the Forms. Look it up.

Other question: is a thought non-physical?

>>8427773
>You seem to be a little bit too sure about what is true or not.
No, I'm very open to the possibility of being proven wrong. Feel free to do so.

>Other question: is a thought non-physical?
I don't think physical processes (like a neurological process) can actually produce anything non-physical. I find epiphenomena and similar concepts pretty unconvincing. So, yeah, I think a thought has some sort of physicality.

>>8427279
>Only numbers representing tangible, finite objects exist. Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't.

Numbers are merely useful mental abstractions.

Bitch.

Yeah, that's right, I said it... math is just a meme.

>>8427806
Ok so you're not an epiphenomenalist, that's good and quite an equilibrated choice. Let's use this statement on which we agree.

Let's consider the most stated argument when it comes to numbers, and maths in general: numbers are an abstraction that proved themselves useful in reality, but they don't actually exist.

Now, what if we said now that if we think numbers, they become a part of ourselves, physically.
Indeed, as the mind and the body share a common substrate, this argument is simply using Descartes' "cogito ergo sum". If I think numbers, this thought is becoming part of my physical life. I think therefore I am. Therefore the object of my thoughts are.

>>8427612
He already mentioned the reals.