Thread: Metaphysical Paradoxes

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

We're not talking about complex numbers, we're talking about your complete ineptitude in debate and your ability to completely ignore the point of a question.

Could you be a little more vague, Dr. Ad Hominem? I think it's interesting that you throw out such a bizarre accusation when I have been so detailed in my on-point responses and you have been just acting like a two year old (Yes, there is such a thing.) having a temper tantrum instead of countering my points. It is you who said this...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I already told you that I'm not going to define two.

That's how much of a participant you have been in this debate.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

However, if ** is two of *,

then

*
*

is i of

**.

There are square root of -1 ** when you post them vertically? That is such ridiculous symbolism. You might as well say there are of * when you post them like this *...**. It's just made up bullshit. Did you understand the Sesame Street video? I can explain it to you if you want me to.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

At any rate, I'm done talking to you. Please fuck off and don't ever get your job back as a math teacher.

My, how frustrated and personality disturbed you really are. Stop acting like an i year old!

I said I wasn't going to define two because it's entirely irrelevant to the point. The question is are numbers "real" or are they just something that we make up to describe the universe. The definition of "two" as opposed to "three" is besides the point and there are many ways to do either, all no doubt well above your head. But you know what two is anyways so why should I waste my time.

As far as it being ridiculous symbolism, it's precisely how one gets a square root for -1. Watch this.

Take +**. Multiply it by i to get

*
*
+

Then multiply that by i again to get

**+

Now surely even you will not be such an annoying obstructionist to claim that **+ is not -1 times +**. But if i²+** = **+ and -1+** = **+ then we can apply cancelation (inverses are unique) to get i² = -1.

Your whole problem is that you won't get it out of your head that numbers have to represent quantity. This whole "numbers are quantities of discrete objects" thing is your own problem and your own hang up. Numbers represent dilations and rotations. -1 is a rotation by pi/2 in the positive sense and i is a rotation by pi/4 in the positive sense. If one rotates by pi/4 twice one rotates by (wait for it...) pi/2, i.e. it's the same as rotating with -1. The fact that numbers can be used to represent quantities is besides the point and is largely a historical accident of their origins in the human mind.

Show me half an apple. Is it one half of one apple or is it one half apple? What happens if one eats the other half? How can you claim that it's half of an apple when there is no other half? If one cuts an apple in half, is it two half apples or one apple? Show me 1/2 of anything.

What if you're looking at a table and a chair? Is it two pieces of furniture or one of each? If it's two pieces of furniture, are you claiming that the universe intrinsically knows what furniture is for there to intrinsically be two of them? Once we define "furniture" then we can decide how many pieces of furniture there are. There's nothing fundamental about it. You're the one making an extraordinary claim and so you're the one that needs to provide evidence for the existence of two or at least answer basic questions about it.

And if you come back with "how many is **" I'm going to ask you how the sky is so pretty without god. So find a new bullshit line to call "on point". The reason it's bullshit is that my answering "two" has no bearing on if "two" exists as an objective entity or if it exists as a convention of human thought.

That's a pretty long post you left after saying this...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

At any rate, I'm done talking to you.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I said I wasn't going to define two because it's entirely irrelevant to the point. The question is are numbers "real" or are they just something that we make up to describe the universe. The definition of "two" as opposed to "three" is besides the point and there are many ways to do either, all no doubt well above your head. But you know what two is anyways so why should I waste my time.

Capatin Dodgeball, we are discussing the nature of two in order to analyze the nature of numbers, and you won't answer my very simple and key question of what two is. Your answer to the question would possibly get us somewhere more constructive, but you are dodging. Your definition doesn't have to be that long. Come on, have the balls to be responsive. Stop being a chicken. Your chicken nature is really frustrating you and making me laugh. Do you really want that?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As far as it being ridiculous symbolism, it's precisely how one gets a square root for -1. Watch this.

Take +**. Multiply it by i to get

*
*
+

Then multiply that by i again to get

**+

Now surely even you will not be such an annoying obstructionist to claim that **+ is not -1 times +**. But if i²+** = **+ and -1+** = **+ then we can apply cancelation (inverses are unique) to get i² = -1.

Your whole problem is that you won't get it out of your head that numbers have to represent quantity. This whole "numbers are quantities of discrete objects" thing is your own problem and your own hang up. Numbers represent dilations and rotations. -1 is a rotation by pi/2 in the positive sense and i is a rotation by pi/4 in the positive sense. If one rotates by pi/4 twice one rotates by (wait for it...) pi/2, i.e. it's the same as rotating with -1. The fact that numbers can be used to represent quantities is besides the point and is largely a historical accident of their origins in the human mind.

Ditch the strawman. I never claimed that numbers are quantities of discrete objects. I claimed that they are discrete quantities. Understand? Your above explanation is all about a symbolic game that mathematicians made up. It is not about real world quantities. Get it? You can multiply a pair of coordinates by Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does it mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real? -1, pi, and fractions of them are real. i is not. It is a fiction principle, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Let's multiply unicorn by Zeus. If you multiply the product by 1/Zeus, you get unicorn. Fuck you if you don't believe me! I hate you for disagreeing! I won't answer your question!

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Show me half an apple. Is it one half of one apple or is it one half apple? What happens if one eats the other half? How can you claim that it's half of an apple when there is no other half? If one cuts an apple in half, is it two half apples or one apple? Show me 1/2 of anything.

It is half of what was originally a complete apple that grew on an apple tree. If by "apple" you mean "any amount of apple," then your definition excludes fractions of an apple. You can have half a quantity, but you cannot half half of a label that is defined with the premise that there cannot be fractions of it. Your idea of "apple" in this case is not a quantity. If you want to see half of a fully developed apple as it grew on the tree with skin all over it (a quantity), here you go...



What about it?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

What if you're looking at a table and a chair? Is it two pieces of furniture or one of each? If it's two pieces of furniture, are you claiming that the universe intrinsically knows what furniture is for there to intrinsically be two of them? Once we define "furniture" then we can decide how many pieces of furniture there are. There's nothing fundamental about it. You're the one making an extraordinary claim and so you're the one that needs to provide evidence for the existence of two or at least answer basic questions about it.

One table, one chair. Together, they comprise two pieces of furniture. It has nothing to do with what the universe knows. Those objects are there, no matter who knows or doesn't know about them. We come up with the symbols, but the objects are there whether we define them or not. If we call those objects pieces of furniture, then there are two of what we called pieces of furniture, and they are still there as two of what we were talking about even when we are not paying attention to them.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

And if you come back with "how many is **" I'm going to ask you how the sky is so pretty without god. So find a new bullshit line to call "on point". The reason it's bullshit is that my answering "two" has no bearing on if "two" exists as an objective entity or if it exists as a convention of human thought.

Oh no, please don't threaten me with asking pro-creationist questions in response to my questions about what the fuck two is when we are discussing what the fuck two is.

How many *'s are there in **? Define "two."

The Noisy Chicken - YouTube

chicken sounds - YouTube

PhilosopherStoned you could have been a better sport with this. You are arguing how real the number two is. Universal Mind asked you to define two and you kept going between saying that you can define it but are not going to to saying its impossible to define to trying to be insult him. I think what Universal Mind is trying to show is that you are missing the point of what real means. He asked you to define two because if you could define it then it would have to be real. It is just as real as any chair or apple regardless of who is asking the question or whether the universe has the ability to think or whatever bs. You may very well be using slightly different definitions of what the word "real" means and the conversation might have progressed to that point if you just answered his simple question. So how about we pick the conversation up from there. What makes something qualify as real or not real.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

PhilosopherStoned you could have been a better sport with this.

I definitely could have. If I had a shred of respect for UM I would have. Do you honestly not see how incredibly dull he's being here?

You are arguing how real the number two is. Universal Mind asked you to define two and you kept going between saying that you can define it but are not going to to saying its impossible to define to trying to be insult him.

When did I say it's impossible to define. I challenged him to do it in response because any answer he comes up with is going to be inadequate and he wouldn't understand any answer I gave if he can't even understand complex numbers.

I think what Universal Mind is trying to show is that you are missing the point of what real means.

UM is trying to play dodge ball so that he can feel right. I'll be damned if he's going to tell me about what real means.

He asked you to define two because if you could define it then it would have to be real.

Is a unicorn real? I can define that. It's a horse that's growing a horn out of its forehead. What do you mean by real? He's specifically asserting that two is some real quality that exists outside of time, that is not made of matter and that is made of other concepts.

It is just as real as any chair or apple regardless of who is asking the question or whether the universe has the ability to think or whatever bs.

He's the one that's saying that "two" is an intrinsic feature of the universe (inb4 slight rewording and claim of strawman)

You may very well be using slightly different definitions of what the word "real" means and the conversation might have progressed to that point if you just answered his simple question.

You define two. Everytime I post some long, complicated post, nobody reads it. I'm done wasting my time. Defining numbers in a correct manner can be tricky, subtle, non-illuminating and is entirely besides the point here. We have an example: two. Is it real or not? Our mechanism of definition is nothing more than giving ourselves the ability to formally manipulate it.

So how about we pick the conversation up from there. What makes something qualify as real or not real.

For the purposes of this conversation, it's made out of matter. That's the basic definition of real. Anything beyond that requires an addition to the rational materialist model which is the defacto model because it's the one that everyone uses regardless of if they claim to or not.

On the whole, UM's argument is non-existent. He says numbers are quantities. Why? That's not how mathematicians usually view them (inb4 someone comes in with some highschool text book claiming the converse: I'm talking about real mathematicians). So now he claims that 90% of mathematics is made up bullshit because he's too stupid/lazy (probably both) to understand it. Ignore the tone and look at his argument patterns. He's a moron, a troll or both.

For example I said that he claimed that numbers are "discrete quanties of objects" and he's claiming that that's a strawman when he straight up says in the next sentence that he's claiming that they're just "discrete quantities" (i.e. forget rational numbers and real numbers, he doesn't believe they're numbers either). Yet a cursory reading of my post shows that at no point does the argument that I advanced depend on them being quantities of objects. What I was actually rejecting was the notion that they're discrete quantities of anything. So I rejected his actual position and yet he comes back calling that a strawman (because it sounds good I imagine which is also typical newage/creationist criterion).

Now let's look at your post. You come in saying that I could have been a better sport and then assert agreement with his fundamental position. I think that you're applying double standards because you agree with his side of the argument. I've answered every one of his questions. I even told him that I'd define two if he told me how it matters. It doesn't matter. He's just using it as a dead horse to beat on to make it look like I'm playing dodgeball and you're falling into it because you want to agree with him and avoid being wrong. So you'll overlook his slimy argument techniques (same ones as creationists and newagers) while calling me out on being appropriately blunt and direct with him. Why don't you tell him to either answer my question (how does the definition of two determine if it's real or not) or tell him to fuck off it?

I could have been using the same argument techniques as him this whole time.

So UM, why does it matter how we define two? Don't we already know what it is? Captain Dodgeball. You've been dodging that question for how many posts now?

Thanks, MadMonkey. Well said. The truth about this discussion is pretty simple. Philly got stumped, and he is having a long winded temper tantrum about it.

I asked him to define "two" because his answer would prove that he actually believes it is real. He knows that, and he is leaving very long and insulting posts instead of just defining "two" in a discussion about the nature of two. If he could define "two" without proving himself wrong, he would do it. He would also tell me how many * are in ** if he could do it without shooting himself in the foot. He is very transparent.

Hey Philly, I bet you can't answer my questions without showing that two is a reality. What is the definition of "two?" How many *'s are in **? Grow some balls and answer the questions. We are discussing the nature of two. Let's get to the bottom of it. Are you having phobias?

This discussion is going a little off topic; I don't really mind but if it's going to continue please don't use childish baiting techniques like calling somebody 'stumped' or 'captain dodgeball'.

While I don't agree with Phil's tone, I have to agree with him. How does defining the number 2 makes you believe it. I can define with mathamatical precision the properties of a tachyon but that doesn't somehow lift it from its-at best- hypothetical status. Also I hate to be inflamatory to you UM but who the hell do you think you are dismissing a vast portion of maths just to accomadate your impoverised view of numbers. By the way imaginary numbers are used by electrical engineers all the time. I think this is becoming almost like a battle between idealism and materialism except ironicly with the participants sitting in the wrong desks.

I think the problem is more to do with the fact that nobody bothered to define 'real'. If you define something properly, the question generally becomes trivial as it is just a matter of checking the definition. But at the moment it's like two people arguing whether there is a crane on top of a building, one of them angrily pointing to the clear scaffold structure and lifting mechanism, the other protesting that it doesn't have any wings.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language" - Wittgenstein.

I guess though that both of them are afraid of giving their definitions of real because that would mean no more long angry tirades and smart comebacks. Personally I think its a stupid argument anyway. neither party is learning anything from each other and no one is going to change their mind.

Now I'm trying to come up with a paradox that can steer this thread back on topic but I got nothing. Even the old 'if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound?' can easily be resolved by clarifying your definition of a sound (subjective perception means no, objective phenomena means yes).

I'd never actually realised that before, really that's the canonical example of a 'philosophical problem' which is actually meaningless and easily solved by the analytic approach. I'll add that to the analogy bank for later.

Originally Posted by Xei

This discussion is going a little off topic; I don't really mind but if it's going to continue please don't use childish baiting techniques like calling somebody 'stumped' or 'captain dodgeball'.

You can be so uptight. I'm sure people you see in real life tell you that too. Also, it's interesting that those are the only two insults you mentioned. Can you think of others? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not the one who initiated the insults in this discussion. You should aim your insults at the person who did.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

While I don't agree with Phil's tone, I have to agree with him. How does defining the number 2 makes you believe it. I can define with mathamatical precision the properties of a tachyon but that doesn't somehow lift it from its-at best- hypothetical status. Also I hate to be inflamatory to you UM but who the hell do you think you are dismissing a vast portion of maths just to accomadate your impoverised view of numbers. By the way imaginary numbers are used by electrical engineers all the time. I think this is becoming almost like a battle between idealism and materialism except ironicly with the participants sitting in the wrong desks.

Who do I think I am? I think I am a person in a PHILOSOPHY forum who is asking philosophical questions that are not being answered. Do you ever question anything mainstream?

This discussion turned into a Monty Python sketch a while back. The discussion has turned into long one about the relevance of two questions when the questions could just be answered very quickly. It is absolutely absurd. This is not a court case where people need to be having anxiety attacks over possible self-incrimination. This ""Objection! Irrelevant! Here's my dissertation on how they are irrelevant," nonsense is so unnecessary and outlandish. We are having a philosophical discussion/debate on the internet.

However, I will address the courtroom incriminating statemement avoidance dance for a moment. The questions being dodged are EXTREMELY relevant. We are discussing the nature of 2, and I am trying to get a definition of the word from the person I am debating. Doesn't that make sense? Of course it does. I am also using my own illustration of the word and trying to get the other person to tell me what label it has. I am not trying to prove the reality of 2 based merely on the fact that it can be defined. The Flying Spaghetti Monster can be defined, but it is not real. That is not what this is about. I think that Philly's answers to my questions will illustrate my point about the reality of 2. I challenged him, and he backed down. In addition to laying good foundation for the discussion (defining the term we are debating), the questions I have been asking are stump questions. In other words, I don't think Philly can answer them without supporting the points I have made. His brief answers would do a lot for the discussion. They would help us get some perspective on the words "real" and "two."

I'm sure you were aware of the debate technique before I explained it to you.

As for the definition of "real," I don't recall dodging questions about the definition of it. Do you, honestly? It means "having existence as something physical, or a property or measure that has the potential of pertaining to something physical." More specifically, we are debating what numbers are real. Such numbers are actual quantities. They do not have to be quantities of physical things. They can be quantities of properties and other things that merely pertain to or are manifested by the physical, such as thoughts, waves, fiction characters, etc., but they have to be actual quantities. 2 is a quantity. i is not a quantity. You can't have i of anything.

Philly came at me earlier in this thread with the claim that 2 is not real. So I have asked him 2 very relevant questions that get right to the heart of what 2 is. Let's see if he gets up the intellectual courage to answer them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You can be so uptight. I'm sure people you see in real life tell you that too.

No, they don't, I'm a pretty chilled person. Now stop being an arse, thanks.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, they don't, I'm a pretty chilled person. Now stop being an arse, thanks.

Well, that's considerate of them. Don't be an arse and expect me not to be one back. Thanks.

Asking you to stop pointless insults in my thread is not being an arse, can you please either grow up and accept my request with grace or just go away.

Originally Posted by Xei

Asking you to stop pointless insults in my thread is not being an arse, can you please either grow up and accept my request with grace or just go away.

This discussion is really getting deep. Thank you for that. Calling me an arse is being an arse. I already told you... If you have a problem with insults in your thread, bitch at the person who initiated them and don't make them yourself.

Now that Xei asked us to end this conversation on his thread, I have no intention of continuing except to provide a few rebuttals. This is mostly for Xei and RationalMystic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I asked him to define "two" because his answer would prove that he actually believes it is real. He knows that, and he is leaving very long and insulting posts instead of just defining "two" in a discussion about the nature of two.

0 is the empty set, i.e. {}.
1 is the set that has 0 as it's member, i.e. {{}}.
2 is the set that has 1 and 0 as its members {{} {{}}}.

Or two is just the same two that we've been talking about. How does that prove that I believe that two is real? It doesn't. Had you ever attempted to answer my question about how the definition of two determines if it's real or not, you would already have known that.

He would also tell me how many * are in ** if he could do it without shooting himself in the foot. He is very transparent.

I already did. I said something along the lines of "two, what's your point?" Again. There's two asterisks, what's your point? Oh yeah. You don't have one.

Are you having phobias?

Just my typical one of stupid people.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think the problem is more to do with the fact that nobody bothered to define 'real'. If you define something properly, the question generally becomes trivial as it is just a matter of checking the definition.

Not quite. First off, he's saying that two exists outside of time and is made out of concepts so he's implicitly defined the relavent subset of his definition of real. If I did believe in things that exist "outside of time" and are "made out of concepts" I still wouldn't believe that two is real. On the other hand, I'm saying that it's not real unless it's made out of matter. While it's true that he specified his definition of real before I did, mine is the defacto definition and so I felt no need to specify until asked. It is interesting to note that even accepting his definition of real, I still don't believe that two is real while accepting my defintion of real forces the issue.

Second for a clear defintion to reduce a debate to triviality requires some degree of intellectual honesty from the participants. I don't believe that UM has this. So even with an agreed upon definition, he wouldn't concede, he'd just find some dead horse to beat on and claim that slight rewordings are strawmen. Note that after I gave my definition of real, he didn't address it but continued with his shenanigans. Of course with someone else, definitions might be more useful and this debate would be over. This is pretty much just about dumping the heaps of ridicule on UM that he deserves. I'll kindly GTFO your thread unless it goes back on topic and I have something to add. Thanks for humoring me.

Originally Posted by Xei

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language" - Wittgenstein.

Great quote from a great thinker.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

I guess though that both of them are afraid of giving their definitions of real because that would mean no more long angry tirades and smart comebacks.

See my answer to Xei. Both definitions were essentally already given. This is actually not about the definition of real if we roll with UM's take on it in that even accepting his definition of real, one is left with the reality of two un-resolved.

I have no more understanding of what it means to "exist outside of time" than I do of what it means to exist outside a Klein bottle.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

0 is the empty set, i.e. {}.
1 is the set that has 0 as it's member, i.e. {{}}.
2 is the set that has 1 and 0 as its members {{} {{}}}.

He talks! I'm mighty proud of you, son. Now, is what you said the truth, or is it fiction?

By the way, apostrophes don't belong in possessive personal pronouns. That knowledge will help you in your quest to assert intellectual superiority.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Or two is just the same two that we've been talking about. How does that prove that I believe that two is real? It doesn't. Had you ever attempted to answer my question about how the definition of two determines if it's real or not, you would already have known that.

You just said what 2 is but did not mention anything about a fictitious nature. If I were to define the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I would mention the fact that it is a character. Here are some other examples. Zeus: the chief god in Greek mythology. Unicorn: a fictitious mammal that resembles a horse and has a single horn in the front of its head. i: the imaginary unit, which represents the fictitious concept of the square root of -1. I think you gave a weak definition because you defined it only by using other numbers and their sets, but at least you got up enough balls to say something. If you give a thorough definition, one that involves what numerical nature is (which I asked for early in the thread), you will show even more your belief in the actuality of 2 because you will have to relate it to that which pertains to the physical world.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I already did. I said something along the lines of "two, what's your point?" Again. There's two asterisks, what's your point? Oh yeah. You don't have one.

Yeah, you did say that a while back, and then you backed away from your position that 2 is real. By saying that there are two asterisks, you are saying that two is real. You said how many asterisks there actually are. That suggests reality. The asterisks are obviously there, and you used "two" to describe their nature. Unless you were being facetious somehow, you just admitted that 2 is a reality and illustrated how it is a reality.

Something very interesting about this is that you came at me in this thread with criticism of the "real number" system. Recently in another forum, you were going off about how imaginary numbers are real/actual. I took the position that they are not. We had an extremely long debate about that. Now you are saying that 2 (a "real number") is not real (Unless I put "real" in quotes, I am not using the word in the standard mathematical sense of "real numbers" versus "imaginary numbers." I know you have the position that those terms are misleading, and I don't want to confuse "real numbers" with the broader and more philosophical use of the term.). So, i is real and 2 is not? Is that your position? Yet you told me about where there are 2 asterisks, but maintained your position that 2 is not real. Are you sure you have really thought through this? It appears that you are just trying to oppose me no matter what. I'm flattered.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Just my typical one of stupid people.

I know you honestly believe that I am stupid. Your sincerity is overwhelming. However, Xei doesn't want people being insulting in his thread, and you expressed your desire to respect Xei's wishes in this thread. I'm sure he will say something to you about it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is pretty much just about dumping the heaps of ridicule on UM that he deserves.

Golly, I didn't realize that. You weren't transparent enough. I am sorry to tell you that you don't mean as much to me as I do to you. I know Xei is pissed about the fact that your side of this discussion was all about being insulting. Do you by any chance have small man's complex?

Originally Posted by Xei

I have no more understanding of what it means to "exist outside of time" than I do of what it means to exist outside a Klein bottle.

Time is only the fourth dimension. Existence is much broader than that. The reality of 2 would remain even if time ceased to exist. 1 + 1 = 2, no matter what. It is a fact that was never created and will never be destroyed.

Ok I at first thought that PhilosopherStoned was just being grumpy but you really are a dick. That weasely go at a little grammer disprecency sealed my suspician. If the definition of "real" is being made of matter then a number cannot be real. This is the definition with which Phil is standing by in this debate yet you're completly ignore. I'm not saying that your definition is of less value but it is a different definition. Also try not to throw shit like this as its an objective fact

the reality of 2 would remain even if time ceased to exist. 1+1=2 no matter what. It is a fact that was never creates and will never be destroyed

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Ok I at first thought that PhilosopherStoned was just being grumpy but you really are a dick. That weasely go at a little grammer disprecency sealed my suspician.

Did you happen to catch where he called me stupid? Did you? He said it. So my pointing out his punctuation error later was legitimate! Biased prick. You are not rational.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

If the definition of "real" is being made of matter then a number cannot be real. This is the definition with which Phil is standing by in this debate yet you're completly ignore. I'm not saying that your definition is of less value but it is a different definition.

This debate between me and him is a sequel to a debate we had in the science and math forum. In that debate, he argued at great length that imaginary numbers are real.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Also try not to throw shit like this as its an objective fact

Also try to counter my points if you disagree with them. Prove that the entirety of existence is completely limited to the fourth dimension. Stretch your imagination as far as it can go and try to come up with some off the wall situation in which 1 + 1 =/= 2. Go for it. What does time have to do with the basis of the equation? Please tell me.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This debate between me and him is a sequel to a debate we had in the science and math forum. In that debate, he argued at great length that imaginary numbers are real.

How is that relevant to what RM said? If PS once argued that i is real and is now arguing that 2 is not real, that just demonstrates different definitions of 'real' in those arguments. Sorry for the tautology but apparently it's necessary: this argument is this argument. Not a different one. PS here defined 'real' as being made of physical matter; things which 2 describes can be real, but 2 itself is not. This seems patently true so I'm not sure where the source of disagreement is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Time is only the fourth dimension. Existence is much broader than that. The reality of 2 would remain even if time ceased to exist. 1 + 1 = 2, no matter what. It is a fact that was never created and will never be destroyed.

This hasn't helped me, yet. What exactly does the 'reality of 2' mean? Sorry if you are repeating yourself but I did use the search function for 'real' on this thread and I couldn't see any attempt at a definition.

Originally Posted by Xei

How is that relevant to what RM said? If PS once argued that i is real and is now arguing that 2 is not real, that just demonstrates different definitions of 'real' in those arguments. Sorry for the tautology but apparently it's necessary: this argument is this argument. Not a different one. PS here defined 'real' as being made of physical matter; things which 2 describes can be real, but 2 itself is not. This seems patently true so I'm not sure where the source of disagreement is.

Once argued? It was a few weeks ago, and he has not backed away from it although we have been discussing imaginary numbers in this thread. You took his side in that debate, so why are you arguing with me? Also, Philly's definition of "real," which he just posted like yesterday, is not a correct definition. I have explained that. Is this a make up definitions game?

2 days is a real amount of time, a couple has 2 people in it, and there are 2 turtles and 2 pies in that Sesame Street video I posted. Days are real, and the turtles and pies were real when the video was made. (Other turtles and pies are real now.) There were exact quantities of the turtles and pies. Are you saying quantities don't exist, or are you saying they don't vary?

The conclusion to draw from the debate I had with the 2 of you (You and Philly: 2 people) a few weeks ago combined with this debate is that the 2 of you believe that i is real and 2 is not. Do the 2 of you still stick to both positions, or did you change your minds at some point?

Originally Posted by Xei

This hasn't helped me, yet. What exactly does the 'reality of 2' mean? Sorry if you are repeating yourself but I did use the search function for 'real' on this thread and I couldn't see any attempt at a definition.

2 is a quantity. If you think there is no such thing as a quantity, go ahead and tell me. Do you think quantities vary? They do, and there are words/symbols for the various quantities. One such quantity is 2. 2 as a quantity of *'s is this many: **. Here are 2 more highly acclaimed educational videos that might help.

1. Sesame Street - Jazz #2 - YouTube

2. Sesame Street - 2 step (HQ) - YouTube

Did you count how many videos I posted? Is it a real quantity?

I posted my definition of "real" is on this page.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It means "having existence as something physical, or a property or measure that has the potential of pertaining to something physical."

That is my explanation. Here is Dictionary.com's:

re·al

adjective

1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.

2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.

3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.

4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.

5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real?s=t

Barrack Obama is real; Superman is not real. Cincinnati, Ohio is real; Atlantis is not real. Al Pacino is real; Michael Corleone is not real. Richard Dawkins is real; God is not real. Knowledge of the existence of 2 is real; knowledge of how to travel faster than the speed of light is not real. Oject speeds of 2 miles per hour are real; object speeds beyond the speed of light are not real. Intelligence is real; omniscience is not real. Your thoughts are real; your kitchen counter's thoughts are not real. Do you see a pattern here? The pattern is real.