
The Mathematics of the Gods and the Algorithms of Men: A Cultural History - Hooke
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/let-s-leave-philosophers-to-puzzle-over-the-reality-of-numbers
======
dr_dshiv
Any civilization, in any galaxy, would have the number one, no? They would
have triangles and circles, too. There are certain universals that seem to
transcend, even if we are living in a simulation, etc.

This idea, of the immaterial nature of numbers is the notion of platonic
forms. That idea came from the pythagoreans who claimed that the universe is
fundamentally made of numbers -- and that there are certain harmonies in
numbers that result in order and beauty in the cosmos.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism)

------
carapace
> It does not make a wink of difference to your life whether the figures in
> your bank account or the digits on your clock are, in a philosophical sense,
> really real, so long as they work as expected.

Argh! It makes a crucial difference if you want not to be slaves to a dream!
Beware: there's no such thing as "Tuesday". And Dollar is a _small_ god.

\- - - -

Anyhoo, _operationally_ numbers come from counting, which comes from a cyclops
matching up pebbles and sheep. Eventually someone gave names to the pebbles,
and then someone (else?) realized that you could do without the actual
pebbles, and there you are: numbers.

And yeah, math is _very useful_ , culminating in the Standard Model and the
Universal Machine and other fun stuff that I don't have to belabor here, eh?

Metaphysically (literally) numbers are each a kind of archetypal _entity_ or
_quality_ (and see also "Sacred geometry") that are somehow "real" w/o being
made out of any _real_ stuff (protons, neutrons, electrons, pebbles, etc.)

It can be fun to reflect that e.g. the C language is of the same
epistemological status: there are books on C, and C compilers, and C code, and
so on, but the C language itself is no more (or less) real than the number two
or Tuesdays.

\- - - -

And yeah, Western history tends to ignore a lot of the world outside the West.
This isn't confined to math. Ever try to read about African history _other
than Egypt_?

~~~
empath75
There’s a history of Indian and African philosophy podcast that makes a good
faith effort at it, but it’s limited by the fact that a lot of it wasn’t
written down particularly outside of North Africa. That goes for African
history in general, at least pre-colonial.

~~~
seisvelas
What is the podcast?

~~~
empath75
[https://hopwag2.podbean.com/](https://hopwag2.podbean.com/)

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/5hrEx](https://archive.md/5hrEx)

------
behnamoh
One of the worst translations I've ever seen.

------
mikorym
Set theory already supposes that sets come before enumeration. I am not sure
what the original Italian book is about then. Maybe it is rephrasing this with
some added history.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Can I ask how sets come before numbers?

And, does the concept of one/whole exist before sets?

~~~
klyrs
One begins with nothing. Specifically, the set containing nothing: {}. From
there, we can describe a sequence of sets, each containing the previous one:
{{}}, {{{}}}, {{{{}}}}, etc. These sets can then be associated with natural
numbers, though arithmetic in this context becomes somewhat perverse.

1 := {}

2 := {{}}

...

n+1 := {n}

This is the simplest set-based description of the natural numbers that I know,
and it's very unwieldy -- one might like to construct negative numbers and
zero; describe algorihms to perform arithmetic, etc. But it's all quite
manageable and a satisfying exercise if one takes the time.

~~~
dr_dshiv
One begins with nothing... How nice! It seems quite ridiculous to ask which
came first.

