1.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind That says something about two, but it's not a distinct definition for the particular number. What is two, as opposed to three or nine? That's all I wanted to say. Two is an uninteresting, specific example. Or will I have to jump through all these hoops to convince you that three doesn't exist next? I think it's a principle, not just a way of slicing the universe. I agree that it's not made of matter, and I don't think matter is the only stuff that exists. There are principles, forces, energy, dimensions, space, etc. You've already lost me. I'm very conused. What's a principle and what's it made out of? Forces, energy, dimensions and space are probably examples of principles though so there's no need to add them onto the list.

2.  Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned That's all I wanted to say. Two is an uninteresting, specific example. Or will I have to jump through all these hoops to convince you that three doesn't exist next? You have yet to tell me what two is, and I have asked you many times now. You told me what we do with numbers in general, but even that was vague. You said they are a tool we use for cutting the universe up in a way that we can understand it better, but you didn't say how. What is two? Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned You've already lost me. I'm very conused. What's a principle and what's it made out of? Forces, energy, dimensions and space are probably examples of principles though so there's no need to add them onto the list. We didn't add them to the list. They were already on it. Numbers are principles, and they are not made of matter. They can be subdivided into other numbers, but they are principles and not physical objects. They still exist. What is two? Explain its numerical nature in terms other than other numerical natures. I am not looking for "one less than three" or anything like that. I am using two as an example of a number to get a perspective on what numbers are, so explain what two is without using another number to define it. You already said it is real. So.... What is it?

3.  The only thing in the universe we can know for certain is that we percieve. The broadest possible term that we can describe what our perceptions are is information. Math encompasses all information and operations on that information. It doesn't matter if it takes the form of numbers and operators or the grammatical constructs of language. Since the only way we can percieve the material world (and this encompasses instruments too) is through information. Hence numbers are in fact more "real" then anything in the material world because while we can have false perceptions, we can't really question the existense of the elements that constitute all of our perception. Just my 2 cents.

4.  What's information?

6.  Originally Posted by Xei What's information? I would describe the quantum of information as being a point that occupies a dimension, a dimension as being defined as a parameter in which to describe something. So you could say in my system dimensions are the space in which information can manifest. Getting anymore elemental then this is impossible: as humans are beings composed of information, they would be unable to concieve of anything that goes beyond it even if something beyond it exists.

8.  Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned I already told you that I'm not going to define two. Thanks any way. Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned Why don't you define two without referring to other numbers. "Two" is an amount that is defined as this many * * of a given unit. What is the relevance of this? You tell me. You kicked off this part of the discussion with this comment... Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned Until you show me a 2 and you show me a + and you show me a =, I have to maintain that these things are all in your head. Defining 2 might help you explore that idea, but you have the right to play dodgeball.

9.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind "Two" is an amount that is defined as this many * * of a given unit. This many asterisks or what the fuck are you talking about? What's a unit? Do you know what two is by the standards you're trying to establish? Of course you don't. Your'e being snaky and dodgy and I might as well be talking to a creationist. A prostelytizer of course I have nothing against the people that just believe it out of convenience.

10.  Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned This many asterisks or what the fuck are you talking about? What's a unit? Do you know what two is by the standards you're trying to establish? Of course you don't. Your'e being snaky and dodgy and I might as well be talking to a creationist. A prostelytizer of course I have nothing against the people that just believe it out of convenience. Yes, that many asterisks. I'm glad you get it. Check out this link. I think it can solve a lot of your problems. Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

11.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind Yes, that many asterisks. I'm glad you get it. Oh ok. That many asterisks. Generally numbers are taken to be more general things that can refer to any kind of object.

12.  You're assuming those asterisks are objective entities, which is silly. Without human perception they don't have any true distinction.

13.  So would you care to give an actual definition or do you just want to roll with "definition" by example?

14.  How can you objectively say they're both "asterisks"? They're a temporary stream of photons, probably differing in intensity at any moment. It's all in our perspective and relatively shallow standards that they are actually an object. Since such a false sense of object or separate entity evolved for survival, don't you think it's possible numbers and math only exist underlying that neurological ability? If elementary particles are truly elementary and eternal or if space and time are granular, then I would question the objectivity of math again.

15.  Originally Posted by Wayfaerer You're assuming those asterisks are objective entities, which is silly. Without human perception they don't have any true distinction. They are objective entities. They are photon patterns, as you said. The fact that their intensities may not be the same does not mean they do not have defining patterns. They both qualify as asterisks. They are what they are even when they are not perceived. There are two of them. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...w=1280&bih=868 Philly, I have explained what two is in several ways, and you are flat out pretending not to understand what I am saying. Now it is your turn to define "two" for the first time. You keep screwing with me for more elaboration although you straight up said you are not going to define it. I didn't realize self-projection hypothesizing could be such a valuable asset in dodgeball.

16.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind They are objective entities. They are photon patterns, as you said. The fact that their intensities may not be the same does not mean they do not have defining patterns. They both qualify as asterisks. They are what they are even when they are not perceived. There are two of them. They have defining patterns because of our limited perspective that rounds them to look the same, they are not objective entities. You're reasoning is honestly kind of disappointing right now.

17.  Originally Posted by Wayfaerer They have defining patterns because of our limited perspective that rounds them to look the same, they are not objective entities. You're reasoning is honestly kind of disappointing right now. There is a common pattern that, though it involves a certain degree of variation in certain measures, allows us to have the common perception. A Toyota Corolla and a Honda Accord are not exactly the same, and we don't even perceive them as being exactly the same, but they both fit a pattern that qualifies them as cars. Computer screen asterisks function in a similar manner. Tell me this... Do those things on the computer screen you are referring to qualify as asterisks? We both seem to know what you are referring to. Why might that be? Your personality is honestly kind of disappointing right now. More on 2... https://www.google.com/search?um=1&h...w=1280&bih=868 Hey Philly, show me i of something. Anything.

18.  They're all human definitions. Cars are an assembly of atoms, no two are exactly the same. Objectively, they are unique and temporary phases of atoms. We call them cars and count them.

19.  Originally Posted by Wayfaerer They're all human definitions. Cars are an assembly of atoms, no two are exactly the same. Objectively, they are unique and temporary phases of atoms. We call them cars and count them. And they have qualities that fit a certain range of characteristics which qualify them under our definition of "car," and it is possible to have two of them. If you won two cars in a sweepstakes, would you know what that means? Would it mean anything? What would it mean? There would be two actual objects you won. Right?

20.  Yes, I'm just saying that without human perspective, it's more difficult to see separate things and hence numbers as objective than you might have thought.

21.  Originally Posted by Wayfaerer Yes, I'm just saying that without human perspective, it's more difficult to see separate things and hence numbers as objective than you might have thought. I know we come up with the words and definitions. That does not mean the realities behind the words and definitions are dependent on us. This video expresses it well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfSEuq1F3w

22.  The realities behind the same word are actually unique and different. This video explains it well Abstract Objects Vs. Arrangements - YouTube

23.  Originally Posted by Wayfaerer The realities behind the same word are actually unique and different. This video explains it well Abstract Objects Vs. Arrangements - YouTube The realities are different in some ways, but they are enough the same to be forms of the same general type of thing.

24.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind The realities are different in some ways, but they are enough the same to be forms of the same general type of thing. Who decides this?

25.  Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned Who decides this? Nobody. There are two of these even if we don't say there are two of them. We might define what qualifies as one of those, but they are still there even when we are not analyzing them. How many of them are in this post? Serious question. How many of them are in this post? Did you see the video I posted? I really think you should watch it. Sesame Street - Baker #2 - YouTube I'm still waiting for you to show me i of something.

Page 4 of 7 First ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•