2+2

[Nausea]

When did 2+2 start equaling 4? Never. It always was.

[scream ale]

I'm hoping this will make sense as I continue to drink.

[Merchant Seaman]

Is the number 2, or any other number for that matter, an entity, or is it information?

[Nausea]

Is the number 2, or any other number for that matter, an entity, or is it information?

I think numbers are abstractions from collection(s) of objects -- abstractions that exist only in minds.

[Merchant Seaman]

Is the number 2, or any other number for that matter, an entity, or is it information?

I think numbers are abstractions from collection(s) of objects -- abstractions that exist only in minds.

So...
If numbers are "abstractions hat exist only in minds"...
The "2" and "4" exist only in our minds, the the postulate, "2+2=4" would therefore also only exist in our mind, so then 2+2 has only equaled 4 when there were minds to conceive such a thing.
But if we are to accept that 2+2 only equals 4 as long as we conceive it, how do we account for the fact that before there was any life on earth, let alone any sentient life capable of conceiving of equations, an object falling toward Earth, would still accelerate at 9.8 meters per second/per second minus the effect of air resistance. So, an object striking the earth would have and energy equal to it's mass times it's velocity, and it's velocity would be a function of the amount of time it was falling, regardless of any quantification we give those values, which tends to imply that perhaps 2+2=4 is more than an abstraction.
But what do I know?
I just cross oceans to earn my drinkin' money

[Artful Drunktective]

I flunked math so I don't get it.

[Badfellow]

When did 2+2 start equaling 4? Never. It always was.

Numbers are units we use to quantify observable data. But do the numbers still exist without a consciousness present to make this assignment? Furthermore, is it possible for 2+2 to equal something other than 4? There have been instances in which 2+2=5.

There too, perhaps never = always.

[scream ale]

Maybe I'm just not as high as everyone else. Or at all.

[oettinger]

As long as I can divide my BAVPs (blood alcohol volume powers) by 0 I`m fine

[Nausea]

So...
If numbers are "abstractions hat exist only in minds"...
The "2" and "4" exist only in our minds, the the postulate, "2+2=4" would therefore also only exist in our mind, so then 2+2 has only equaled 4 when there were minds to conceive such a thing.
But if we are to accept that 2+2 only equals 4 as long as we conceive it, how do we account for the fact that before there was any life on earth, let alone any sentient life capable of conceiving of equations, an object falling toward Earth, would still accelerate at 9.8 meters per second/per second minus the effect of air resistance. So, an object striking the earth would have and energy equal to it's mass times it's velocity, and it's velocity would be a function of the amount of time it was falling, regardless of any quantification we give those values, which tends to imply that perhaps 2+2=4 is more than an abstraction.
But what do I know?
I just cross oceans to earn my drinkin' money

You're right: the initial post I made seems to ascribe to a realism about numbers that my second post purports to dissolve as mere mind-dependent abstractions.

In retrospect, I identify with the second post's non-realism more strongly, namely because I don't know what an abstract object or entity would be and how it would causally interact with the mechanics of physics. It's also more parsimonious, postulating less entities in one's ontology.

To address your falling object example, just because the dynamics of the universe can be described with the language of mathematics does not entail that its postulates exist in some real way.

I can talk about unicorns using language without there needing to really be unicorns.

[Patchez]

.

I can talk about unicorns using language without there needing to really be unicorns.

Take that back you lying dirty math monster!