Meaning of time

[thispersonisagenius]

The way I see it, numbers exist in a general sense. What I mean is that our perception of what a number is tells us that it doesn't exist outside of the use of sentient beings. A number is simply a quantity, an amount of something. Whether or not we choose to keep track of what that number is doesn't matter. For example, there are 8 planets in the solar system. Try proving to me that that number doesn't exist outside of human thought.

[OldTrees]

The way I see it, numbers exist in a general sense. What I mean is that our perception of what a number is tells us that it doesn't exist outside of the use of sentient beings. A number is simply a quantity, an amount of something. Whether or not we choose to keep track of what that number is doesn't matter. For example, there are 8 planets in the solar system. Try proving to me that that number doesn't exist outside of human thought.

I am unwilling to make an unsupported assertion as to where the boundary between existence and non existence lies within the blurry region discussed in metaphysics.

I am willing to critique those that do.

[ARTHANASIOS]

1) Source?
2) Being an expert on how numbers behave does not make one an expert on whether concepts exist or not. Or whether relations exist.

Q: Source?
A: Here are my sources:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
"A number is a mathematical object used to count, label, and measure."

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object
"A mathematical object is an abstract object arising in philosophy of mathematics and mathematics."

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object
"An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction)."

Being an expert on how numbers behave does not make one an expert on whether concepts exist or not. Or whether relations exist.
A: I do not consider myself an expert in anything.
 I just try to think, read and learn; nothing more and nothing less. I was always against classifying peoples to noobs and experts, because it gives the false impression that the beginners know nothing while the experts know everything. No offence, but if there is someone here who believes he is an expert or master of something, then this is you, OldTrees. "Idea Guru", now if that signature doesn't show how expert you think you are, then I don't know what the heck it shows. You are indeed the most intelligent person inside the community, more intelligent than me, more intelligent than anyone else, but I clearly don't think you're an expert or master. I sound like an ignorant person right now, but that's what I believe.

[AnonymousRevival]

While, these are quite informative, it is highly recommended not to use wikipedia for referencing.

[OldTrees]

1) Source?
2) Being an expert on how numbers behave does not make one an expert on whether concepts exist or not. Or whether relations exist.

Q: Source?
A: Here are my sources:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
"A number is a mathematical object used to count, label, and measure."

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object
"A mathematical object is an abstract object arising in philosophy of mathematics and mathematics."

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object
"An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction)."

Being an expert on how numbers behave does not make one an expert on whether concepts exist or not. Or whether relations exist.
A: I do not consider myself an expert in anything.
 I just try to think, read and learn; nothing more and nothing less. I was always against classifying peoples to noobs and experts, because it gives the false impression that the beginners know nothing while the experts know everything. No offence, but if there is someone here who believes he is an expert or master of something, then this is you, OldTrees. "Idea Guru", now if that signature doesn't show how expert you think you are, then I don't know what the heck it shows. You are indeed the most intelligent person inside the community, more intelligent than me, more intelligent than anyone else, but I clearly don't think you're an expert or master. I sound like an ignorant person right now, but that's what I believe.

1) "An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction)."
I do not see where it claims abstract objects don't exist. Rather it says that abstract objects have the same existant/nonexistant nature as ideas. This then goes into the metaphysical debate.

2) I miscommunicated. You were presenting the opinion of the "science of mathematics" as if it had a higher value than the conflicting opinions of "metaphysics". I was pointing out that if one cites an authority it should be an authority in the issue at hand rather than the related issue.
I am generally against discriminating between opinions based upon the source of the opinion. If the source is an "expert" in a field an that field cannot be explained at my level then I am willing to give their opinion higher weight. (Ex: I trust the opinion of nuclear scientists on nuclear reactors more than I trust my own) However if the field can be explained at my level then the opinion of the "expert" will be evaluated regardless of the source. (Ex: I don't trust the opinion of a political scientist more than I trust my own. I evaluate both arguments equally)
PS: You did not sound ignorant.  I used to have another quote there. Must have got lost in the forum change. Fixed now. Just to be clear: I am not calling you a fool. The quote is criticizing people that do not listen to everyone.

[ARTHANASIOS]

^
 The "does not exist at any particular time or place" indicates that it is not a 'fact' of the universe, it is not made of matter or energy. It is an 'idea'. Mathematics exist as a human idea, but not in the physical word. 'Physical word' here means the laws of physics. They're used to describe physics, but they're not part of it. Mathematics actually are more like a 'tool' than a true science. However, this tool which is extremely useful in everyday life and in every science.
 Glad I didn't sound ignorant.

While, these are quite informative, it is highly recommended not to use wikipedia for referencing.

I understand what you're trying to say here, however Wikipedia is a well-known source and everyone has easy access to it. Furthermore, Wikipedia usually includes links which lead to more sophisticated sources than Wiki itself.

[hell7fire1]

The way I see it, numbers exist in a general sense. What I mean is that our perception of what a number is tells us that it doesn't exist outside of the use of sentient beings. A number is simply a quantity, an amount of something. Whether or not we choose to keep track of what that number is doesn't matter. For example, there are 8 planets in the solar system. Try proving to me that that number doesn't exist outside of human thought.

This is more or less what I usually think, the symbol two(2) might be made up by humans....but when it comes to quantity, 2 apples is represented as 2 apples,
I do not think linking various wikipedia page quotes to get a conclusion is a method of finding facts that substantially support arguments, not saying what I previously said was right, I was just expressing a thought that had come to me.

Anyway,back to numbers, I still don't exactly understand how you can say mathematics it-self agrees numbers do not exist...

Possibly a more simpler way of saying it could aid my ears.

[kimham8a]

If some scientific and philosophical groups think that everything has an opposite, maybe rather than the opposite of a book being a journal or movie, but rather an anti-book, or dark-book.
Just pointing it out, no personal opinion.

PS: IMO, Wikipedia itself is not a good reference; however, the sources inside Wikipedia tend to be good sources. Wikipedia just summarizes those sources.

[1011686]

The laws of physics ARE part of the universe, even though they arent made of energy or matter, or exist at a time or place.They exist because what they describe exists. The only way they couldn't would be if the things they describe didn't exist, and they do.
For that matter, time and space themselves don't have any of those properties, yet they certainly exist.
Also, numbers do naturally exist in the form of numeric relationships. For example, crystals will always have a certain amount of sides depending on what mineral they are and how they were formed.
Also, at the very start, Arun said stasis doesn't exist. How could you know if it did? Stasis could occur a thousand times a second and you wouldn't realise anything happening.

[andretimpa]

Please don't necro the troll thread.