Thread: Metaphysical Paradoxes

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

Words did not descend from the heavens. They are just names, created by humans for utility. There is zero point in arguing that something constitutes a 'correct' definition, just like mathematicians never argue over a 'correct' notation. Whatever you use is just a shortcut for the concepts that are the actual substance of the argument. Few people may agree that a certain definition is ubiquitous or even common, perhaps so few that it doesn't appear in a publication like a dictionary, but the only thing that is relevant is that the participants in a discussion are using the same words to refer to the same concept.

I don't see any of the above being controversial and it is a discussion of zero worth, so let's terminate stuff about 'correct' definitions here and just be content to be clear with one another.

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?

Was my previous explanation somehow inadequate? I have not changed my position. The definition you gave of real in the previous discussion is not the same as the one which I briefly used in this thread. Yesterday I was saying there is a crane on top of the building and now I'm saying there isn't a crane on top of the building, but my position hasn't changed. Again I don't want to invest time in something so trivial, let's just restrict the discussion to the only bit of relevance, which is below.

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

What does 'having existence as something physical' mean? Most people use 'having existence' and 'real' as synonyms. Indeed, if you refer to wiktionary, the word real is explained as 'something in existence', while the word existence is described as 'that with the property of being real'. Of course, this achieves nothing.

Could you also describe how I determine whether something is a measure.

I realize now that Universal Mind is being a troll and how PhilosopherStoned was reacting was justified. Sorry about that. :/ This whole conversation has been going in circles for a long time although I think it has been entreating and learned a few things.

Originally Posted by Xei

What does 'having existence as something physical' mean? Most people use 'having existence' and 'real' as synonyms. Indeed, if you refer to wiktionary, the word real is explained as 'something in existence', while the word existence is described as 'that with the property of being real'. Of course, this achieves nothing.

By some definitions of existence something can exist even if it is not real. i exists even though it is imaginary and only exists inside of our heads. I think that is part of the definition that Universal Mind is trying to use for real. If it exists only if we perceive it (like superman and i) it is imaginary. If it exists even even if we don't perceive it, it is real. Still some believe that all numbers are imaginary even under that definition. It is a different definition that isn't compatible with PhilosopherStoned's in the first place.

As far as mathematics not holding up outside of the dimension of time, I don't see why it wouldn't as long as its not imaginary. I myself have not decided if I think numbers are real or imaginary. Although actually pointing to a situation outside of time were it might apply would be very hard if not impossible because we are inside of the dimension of time I don't see what the connection is.

Now that I think about, theres an easy way of disproving the primality of the number 2 within the domain of maths itself.
The numbers 1-9 are artifacts of our mod9 numeric system. However there are other modular systems possible and they are used frequently. For example measuring seconds is done with a mod59 system. If you use a mod1 system, you follow the number 1 with 10 so the number line progresses like this: 1,10,11,100,101,110.111,1000...
This makes proving that 1+1 does not nessesarily equate to 2 a cinch as under this equally valid numeric system 1+1=10.

As a an interesting cultural synchronocity of this, the Hopi clan of native americans do not group entities together like western people, they treat all percieved objects as distinct from one another. For example a western person would say that there are two trees on the hill wheras a hopi would say that there is a tree on the summit if the hill and a tree on the edge of the slope. Interestingly this cognitive distinction is instilled in their very language. Since the hopi's (and many other native american tribes's) language is polysynthetic, they can encode a single word with great detail in form and spacial oriontation. Xei will probably recall me going on about this in the overpopulation thread.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Yes I did happen to catch that. I agree with him. A punctuation error has very little correlation with intelligence where as your conduct in an argument (which has been terrible so far btw) has a lot.

So there is a correlation. I pointed out a flaw to screw with him about an intellectual imperfection because he has his nose in the air and has been acting like a juvenile delinquent. Your conduct in this thread also has been terrible. You and the intoxicated, self-proclaimed philosopher both initiated rudeness with me. I did not initiate it with either one of you. My hostility has been in response to yours. That makes mine much more legitimate than the 2 of yours. It's interesting how you don't have a problem with the intoxicated babbler's initiation of rudeness yet have a problem with the fact that I have been returning it. That is not rational. You seem really determined to play the role of sidekick. That's really pathetic. Now stop whining about conduct. I feel like I am teaching kindergarten children when it's okay and not okay to be mean and teaching them what 2 is.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

I don't care if he was arguing that imaginary numbers were real in another thread.
This is a different thread with a different topic and with a completely different definition of real, namely something that consists of matter. Also I wouldn't keep raging against imaginary numbers if I were you. Your definition of something real being something composed of matter OR a concept involving matter means that you cannot reasonably refute their existence within the framework of your definition of the word.

It was that argument which led straight into this one. The intoxicated babbler decided to bring the very recent issue to this thread. Also, as I said, his very new defintion is not the true / standard definition. My definition of "real" does not encompass imaginary numbers. I didn't say "concept involving matter." Atlantis is a concept involving matter, but it is not real. Read again. You're being a slow pupil.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

I don't need to prove that the "entirety of existence is completely limited to the fourth dimension", you need to prove to me that something exists that doesn't. Also if you want, here's one: Take a water drop and another water drop. Drop one onto another, what do you get? A water droplet. There I have "proven" that 1+1=1! And as for the last question, I'll answer it with another question: Have you ever experienced the result of an equation outside the constraints of time?

Numbers are quantities, not objects. Putting 1 water drop on another 1 and getting 1 water drop does not prove that 1 + 1 = 1, Little Johnny. It proves that water drops, which are not quantities, can be combined into 1 water drop that has the volume of the 2 original water drops combined. If the 2 water drops have the same volume, the new water drop has 2 times the volume of either of the original 2.

Our universe has at least 10 dimensions, and it is only 1 universe. The first 3 dimensions are are components of the fourth but are individual entities themselves. 1 + 1 = 2 in those dimensions. Take a screen shot of this page and look at this **. You will see that 1 + 1= 2 is true in the 2nd dimension. The truth of it is not dependent on the 4th dimension.

Originally Posted by Xei

Words did not descend from the heavens. They are just names, created by humans for utility. There is zero point in arguing that something constitutes a 'correct' definition, just like mathematicians never argue over a 'correct' notation. Whatever you use is just a shortcut for the concepts that are the actual substance of the argument. Few people may agree that a certain definition is ubiquitous or even common, perhaps so few that it doesn't appear in a publication like a dictionary, but the only thing that is relevant is that the participants in a discussion are using the same words to refer to the same concept.

I don't see any of the above being controversial and it is a discussion of zero worth, so let's terminate stuff about 'correct' definitions here and just be content to be clear with one another.

Language involves standard definitions. Without understandings involving common/official meanings, I could conclude that you are very possibly not even talking about numbers, reality, or even defintions. You would have been talking about wrestling on top of a refrigerator for all I know. Dictionaries exist for a reason.

By the way, when I said "2" all of those times, I meant "couch."

Originally Posted by Xei

Was my previous explanation somehow inadequate? I have not changed my position. The definition you gave of real in the previous discussion is not the same as the one which I briefly used in this thread. Yesterday I was saying there is a crane on top of the building and now I'm saying there isn't a crane on top of the building, but my position hasn't changed. Again I don't want to invest time in something so trivial, let's just restrict the discussion to the only bit of relevance, which is below.

It is not that your explanations were inadequate. It is that they contradict each other. Let's cut to the chase. Pick a definition of "real," the one you agree with today, and answer these questions. However, keep in mind that I am talking about the more general metaphysical sense and not the official "real" versus "imaginary" numbers labels that are in math textbooks. You already said that those terms are bogus, while I completely disagree. I mean "real" in the sense of what has been argued about in this thread.

1. Is 2 real?
2. Is i real?

Let's clear that up once and for all.

Originally Posted by Xei

What does 'having existence as something physical' mean? Most people use 'having existence' and 'real' as synonyms. Indeed, if you refer to wiktionary, the word real is explained as 'something in existence', while the word existence is described as 'that with the property of being real'. Of course, this achieves nothing.

Well, that's inadequate on Wiktionary's part. I didn't use that source. I agree with the defiintions they use, but they should elaborate instead of presenting such loops. Something physical is something made of matter. I think I have defined "real" quite enough, and I even posted a dictionary definition.

Originally Posted by Xei

Could you also describe how I determine whether something is a measure.

It must be a quantity of something physical. Properties such as mass, volume, distance, and speed involve measures, i.e. 30 grams, 48 miles, 172.83 cubic inches, etc. I think maybe you should use a dictionary. It would answer a lot of your questions.

I am double posting because the edit function is frozen.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I realize now that Universal Mind is being a troll and how PhilosopherStoned was reacting was justified. Sorry about that. :/ This whole conversation has been going in circles for a long time although I think it has been entreating and learned a few things.

By some definitions of existence something can exist even if it is not real. i exists even though it is imaginary and only exists inside of our heads. I think that is part of the definition that Universal Mind is trying to use for real. If it exists only if we perceive it (like superman and i) it is imaginary. If it exists even even if we don't perceive it, it is real. Still some believe that all numbers are imaginary even under that definition. It is a different definition that isn't compatible with PhilosopherStoned's in the first place.

As far as mathematics not holding up outside of the dimension of time, I don't see why it wouldn't as long as its not imaginary. I myself have not decided if I think numbers are real or imaginary. Although actually pointing to a situation outside of time were it might apply would be very hard if not impossible because we are inside of the dimension of time I don't see what the connection is.

A troll? You need to explain that. Did I step on your tail at some point?

Concepts are real. What they are of are not always real. The idea of Superman is real. Superman is not real.

Read what I just wrote about dimensions.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Now that I think about, theres an easy way of disproving the primality of the number 2 within the domain of maths itself.
The numbers 1-9 are artifacts of our mod9 numeric system. However there are other modular systems possible and they are used frequently. For example measuring seconds is done with a mod59 system. If you use a mod1 system, you follow the number 1 with 10 so the number line progresses like this: 1,10,11,100,101,110.111,1000...
This makes proving that 1+1 does not nessesarily equate to 2 a cinch as under this equally valid numeric system 1+1=10.

As a an interesting cultural synchronocity of this, the Hopi clan of native americans do not group entities together like western people, they treat all percieved objects as distinct from one another. For example a western person would say that there are two trees on the hill wheras a hopi would say that there is a tree on the summit if the hill and a tree on the edge of the slope. Interestingly this cognitive distinction is instilled in their very language. Since the hopi's (and many other native american tribes's) language is polysynthetic, they can encode a single word with great detail in form and spacial oriontation. Xei will probably recall me going on about this in the overpopulation thread.

That illustrates nothing but variations in language, not the nonreality of 2 as we define it.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

By some definitions of existence something can exist even if it is not real. i exists even though it is imaginary and only exists inside of our heads. I think that is part of the definition that Universal Mind is trying to use for real. If it exists only if we perceive it (like superman and i) it is imaginary. If it exists even even if we don't perceive it, it is real. Still some believe that all numbers are imaginary even under that definition. It is a different definition that isn't compatible with PhilosopherStoned's in the first place.

As far as mathematics not holding up outside of the dimension of time, I don't see why it wouldn't as long as its not imaginary. I myself have not decided if I think numbers are real or imaginary. Although actually pointing to a situation outside of time were it might apply would be very hard if not impossible because we are inside of the dimension of time I don't see what the connection is.

The line thats in bold pretty much explains the biggest problem with UM's argument. How can you observe something outside of your own sphere of existence. We live in a world thats in constant flux. Even if you don't treat time as an actual dimension and just as a measure of change then you're in difficult territory. Even if we somehow managed to cool a noble gas atom to absoute zero (which is already impossible), you will still have the endless uncertain dance of the electrons around the nucleus, the fluntuations of the electromagnetic attraction between the nucleus and the electrons that such movement will create and thats without taking into account the raging quantum activity that will prevail at plank's scale. We can't observe timelessness.

Also why isn't there an option to like your comments but there are for everyone else?

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

The line thats in bold pretty much explains the biggest problem with UM's argument. How can you observe something outside of your own sphere of existence. We live in a world thats in constant flux. Even if you don't treat time as an actual dimension and just as a measure of change then you're in difficult territory. Even if we somehow managed to cool a noble gas atom to absoute zero (which is already impossible), you will still have the endless uncertain dance of the electrons around the nucleus, the fluntuations of the electromagnetic attraction between the nucleus and the electrons that such movement will create and thats without taking into account the raging quantum activity that will prevail at plank's scale. We cannot obserb timelessness.

Also why isn't there an option to like your comments but there are for everyone else?

I explained how to understand the first 3 dimensions independently. Dimensions beyond the 4th can only be understood in terms of equations.

You asked me earlier who I think I am to question imaginary numbers, but here you are questioning the existence of 2 and of 1 + 1= 2. Interesting.

As for why I don't have a like option, all I can say is that the site is having technical issues. I would have to log in as somebody else to see it for myself because, as far as I know, I can't give likes to my own posts.

As I said I would I am ignoring the discussion about definitions because it is boring and pointless, and your questions can be easily answered by referring to my previous posts, or indeed to anybody else in this thread, all of whom seem to understand.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Well, that's inadequate on Wiktionary's part. I didn't use that source. I agree with the defiintions they use, but they should elaborate instead of presenting such loops. Something physical is something made of matter. I think I have defined "real" quite enough, and I even posted a dictionary definition.

You'll notice I ignored the dictionary definition. This is because it wasn't a definition, it was several definitions. Definition 5, for instance, has nothing to do with what you mean (presumably), as 2 is clearly not real under that definition. That is of course the whole reason that it's important you personally specify exactly what you mean. So I'll stick with the definition that you were using, unless you want to change it.

You haven't defined real 'quite enough' because the entire purpose of words is to act as shortcuts for your interlocutor (see above), and I, your interlocutor, don't yet know what you mean.

I'll take a stab at what your definition of "having existence as something physical" means: something with the potential to affect my senses.

This is kind of tangential because you yourself don't believe that 2 has physical existence (your definition was two-pronged and as far as I can tell it was your intention that 2 be classed as real by virtue of satisfying the second about measure rather than the first about physical existence), but this is interesting so by all means continue.

It must be a quantity of something physical. Properties such as mass, volume, distance, and speed involve measures, i.e. 30 grams, 48 miles, 172.83 cubic inches, etc.

What's a quantity? What things are physical?

Your ostensive definition seems to be getting somewhere, but what about things like amount (of trees, clouds, etcetera)?

Originally Posted by Xei

As I said I would I am ignoring the discussion about definitions because it is boring and pointless, and your questions can be easily answered by referring to my previous posts, or indeed to anybody else in this thread, all of whom seem to understand.

Great, drop the definitions issue. You were making it an issue. I'm glad you decided to move on and no longer need me to define common words for you.

Originally Posted by Xei

You'll notice I ignored the dictionary definition. This is because it wasn't a definition, it was several definitions. Definition 5, for instance, has nothing to do with what you mean (presumably), as 2 is clearly not real under that definition. That is of course the whole reason that it's important you personally specify exactly what you mean. So I'll stick with the definition that you were using, unless you want to change it.

Back to definitions already? All 5 defintions together illustrate the concept. They do not contradict each other.

Originally Posted by Xei

You haven't defined real 'quite enough' because the entire purpose of words is to act as shortcuts for your interlocutor (see above), and I, your interlocutor, don't yet know what you mean.

I don't know what else to tell you. I have defined it a ridiculous amount, and you knew the meaning of the word before this discussion even started.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'll take a stab at what your definition of "having existence as something physical" means: something with the potential to affect my senses.

It's not that simple. Use multiple dictionaries.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is kind of tangential because you yourself don't believe that 2 has physical existence (your definition was two-pronged and as far as I can tell it was your intention that 2 be classed as real by virtue of satisfying the second about measure rather than the first about physical existence), but this is interesting so by all means continue.

That is correct. 2 does not have physical existence. It is a measure of physical existence. You can't touch a 2, but you can touch 2 turtles and you can pick up something that weighs 2 pounds. Why is that difficult?

Originally Posted by Xei

What's a quantity? What things are physical?

You need more definitions? Am I your dictionary? I already said that physical things are made of matter. This is getting boring.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your ostensive definition seems to be getting somewhere, but what about things like amount (of trees, clouds, etcetera)?

There can be 2 of those also.

You ignored my most important questions.

1. Is 2 real?
2. Is i real?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Back to definitions already? All 5 defintions together illustrate the concept. They do not contradict each other.

...yes they do.

Definition 5 is 'not counterfeit'. Fake silk is something it gives as explicitly not real. Definition 3 is 'not imaginary'. Clearly fake silk is not imaginary, and hence real.

Seriously, why did you make me do this? What you said is so trivially wrong.

I don't know what else to tell you. I have defined it a ridiculous amount, and you knew the meaning of the word before this discussion even started.

It's not that simple. Use multiple dictionaries.

Clearly made redundant by the above.

That is correct. 2 does not have physical existence. It is a measure of physical existence. You can't touch a 2, but you can touch 2 turtles and you can pick up something that weighs 2 pounds. Why is that difficult?

It isn't at all, it's totally trivial.

You need more definitions? Am I your dictionary? I already said that physical things are made of matter. This is getting boring.

On the contrary, I can see why Socrates got such kicks. What's 'matter'?

You ignored my most important questions.

1. Is 2 real?
2. Is i real?

Like I said, you can answer this by simply reading my posts. Clearly you aren't going to do so, so to eliminate this issue I will write a couple of redundant lines of text just for you.

It depends on the definition of real. If we take Definition 5 from your dictionary, neither are real. If we take the mathematical definition, 2 is and i isn't. If we define real as 'useful for modelling reality', both are real. If we take PS's definition of 'having physical existence', neither are real. If we take Definition 3, or your definition, which look roughly similar, I don't know yet as they haven't been sufficiently explicated for me.

I never said "concept involving matter"

But this is what you essentially said. You said that numbers are a quantity of something physical. A measure is a concept. All concepts can be conveyed through numeric values.. If numbers truly exists in a timeless reality, that means that every instance of a number already exists. This means that all concepts involving matter are real. You are right in one sense though. Despite what you've said, your definition of real means that ALL concepts must be real including Atlantis. This is because what we conceive has two elements: our perceptions and manipulation of those perceptions. Since all conception consists of either percieving physical reality or manipulating that perception (all possible manipulations already being commited by the timeless numbers), this means that all concepts must be real.

Also your rebuttal of the mod1 approach is invalid. The mod1 approach to numbers is the most fundumental numeric system possible. All other numbers are just constructs (i.e concepts) built upon 1's though I guess your system defines those as real. You are placing false significence to the mod9 system. Whats more is you seem to not understand that by being able to signify each increment with a new placeholder, the very idea of 2 being primeval ceases to work. Don't dismiss such an important distinction as trivial just because you fail to understand it.

The water drop example was more of a joke but illustrates an important point: the concept of 2 is largly a mental construct. For example lets go back to the water drop analogy in more detail. Lets add the water drop to the other water drop. Now there are numerous ways of looking at our end result. You can say as you did that we end up with a water drop with twice the volume. However since its bound by shared surface tension and intramolecular bounds its still one water drop. We could also look at it and treat the new water drop as a different entity. If numbers exist outside of time, doesn't this also mean that they are free of the bounds of cause and effect? Calling it a brand new water drop is easily posssible because the timeless nature of numbers allow you to compartmantize the time line that you use in your evaluation. Also I'm not your pupil you prick and I was wondering why I couldn't like madmonkey's comment.

With respect to the mod thing... for a start I'm not sure if it is 'mod'. Maybe it's a different terminology but I would call that 'base'. Also the base number is the number at which it comes back to 0 rather than the penultimate number; so we use base 10, and 1011010101010 and the like are base 2. Base 1 is really the most fundamental base. 5 would be written as 11111, for instance. Reals are fine too. You can write sqrt(2) in this system as 1 + 1 / (11 + 1 / (11 + 1 / (11 + ... ))) which is rather cool.

But I would contend that in any sensible definition of real, the reality of 2 is independent of the way one writes it (such as base), as it's just a different representation of the same mental structure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A troll? You need to explain that. Did I step on your tail at some point?

I called you a troll because you hijacked this thread and drove it off-topic just to continue a personal grudge with PhilosopherStoned.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is getting boring.

I agree. I think we have figured out we are trying to say the same thing in different ways and its time to move on.

One last thing that I have been thinking about because of this thread is what about quantities of quantities. If you were to "count" the number of distinct "real numbers" you would wind up with a distinct quantity of infinite length. Even all the numbers between 0 and 1 would be infinite. You can't even wright them order because you can't point to the smallest number after 0 to start with so can you count them?

Anyone else got any metaphysical Paradoxes to get this discussion back on topic.

That's actually a well-studied area of mathematics, and you have actually come pretty close to the basic concepts, which would have made you rather revolutionary in 1880!

What counting actually 'is' is finding a correspondence with a set. When you count 5 sheep, you are creating a one-to-one correspondence between each sheep and an element of the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. We say anything in correspondence with this set is of size '5'.

We can do this with infinite collections of objects, too. What about the even numbers, {2, 4, 6, ... }? We can put them into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, {1, 2, 3, ... } by halving them. We therefore say that the even numbers are the same size as the natural numbers, and we refer to this size as aleph 0, which is the smallest infinity, or else we say the objects are 'countable'.

It turns out that fractions are countable; there are the same number of fractions as there are natural numbers.

There is a bigger infinity, as you suggested: the real numbers (the continuous number line), although the reason you gave isn't quite right. Yes it's true that you can't order them from smallest to largest in the way that you said, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to order them in some other way (ordering here means putting into one-to-one to correspondence with the naturals). Indeed, you can order fractions in this way. But, as it turns out, you can't order the reals like that. The reason is something called the 'diagonal argument', which I made a post about a while back:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f77/differ...4/#post1498898

I have a feeling UM will dismiss this all as a 'crock of shit'.

Originally Posted by Xei

With respect to the mod thing... for a start I'm not sure if it is 'mod'. Maybe it's a different terminology but I would call that 'base'. Also the base number is the number at which it comes back to 0 rather than the penultimate number; so we use base 10, and 1011010101010 and the like are base 2. Base 1 is really the most fundamental base. 5 would be written as 11111, for instance. Reals are fine too. You can write sqrt(2) in this system as 1 + 1 / (11 + 1 / (11 + 1 / (11 + ... ))) which is rather cool.

But I would contend that in any sensible definition of real, the reality of 2 is independent of the way one writes it (such as base), as it's just a different representation of the same mental structure.

I am simplifing things a lot but I still think I've made my point. Also a paticular mod system can have distinctive mathamatical patterns that only exist within that system. For example if you take the mod9 (or base10 if you like) decimal system and starting from the number 1 continuosly double, you end up with the repeating pattern 1,2,4,8,7,5 (any number that exceeds 9 is digitally reduced). This pattern also holds even in reverse if you begin halfing. Another example is the repeating 24 digit pattern found in the fibernacci sequence. Of course numerologists often get excited by this but the moment you switch to a different base, the patterns collapse and out comes new ones. So in my opinion the existence of 2 (or any number besides 1) is not independant of its representation.

I see that using a different base may make reveal a pattern in a sequence, but of course that pattern can be stated in any base, and I don't see how the conduciveness to insight is related to existence.

Originally Posted by Xei

I see that using a different base may make reveal a pattern in a sequence, but of course that pattern can be stated in any base, and I don't see how the conduciveness to insight is related to existence.

Yeah maybe I'm confusing application with reality. I think that this thread has become so confused that I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. I have to admit that I find modular arithmetic really cool and I might just start a thread talking about some of the cool patterns you can find with digit reduction. I'm sorry for bringing it here.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I called you a troll because you hijacked this thread and drove it off-topic just to continue a personal grudge with PhilosopherStoned.

False. Philly drove it off topic by saying 2 is a bullshit concept. I can show you exactly where that happened. I argued back, and now there is a mob of people wanting to argue with my insane idea that 2 is real. Where did you get your misconception?

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I agree. I think we have figured out we are trying to say the same thing in different ways and its time to move on.

Tell that to the bandwagon you joined.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I
One last thing that I have been thinking about because of this thread is what about quantities of quantities. If you were to "count" the number of distinct "real numbers" you would wind up with a distinct quantity of infinite length. Even all the numbers between 0 and 1 would be infinite. You can't even wright them order because you can't point to the smallest number after 0 to start with so can you count them?

You can say how many there are, but you cannot count them 1 at a time. How is that relevant?

Originally Posted by Xei

...yes they do.

Definition 5 is 'not counterfeit'. Fake silk is something it gives as explicitly not real. Definition 3 is 'not imaginary'. Clearly fake silk is not imaginary, and hence real.

They all mean the same thing, but in different specific ways. They all mean "actual." Things can be actual in terms of existence, legitimacy, and other things. Fake silk is not imaginary, but its existence as true silk is imaginary. That is how it is not real silk. Do you see the connection?

Originally Posted by Xei

Seriously, why did you make me do this? What you said is so trivially wrong.

I don't recall asking you to miss my point.

Originally Posted by Xei

On the contrary, I can see why Socrates got such kicks. What's 'matter'?

Except he didn't do it for the purpose of being dodgy. What is what? What is is?

Originally Posted by Xei

...
Like I said, you can answer this by simply reading my posts. Clearly you aren't going to do so, so to eliminate this issue I will write a couple of redundant lines of text just for you.

I have read all of your posts, word for word. You have not been clear on those two very simple and key questions.

Originally Posted by Xei

It depends on the definition of real. If we take Definition 5 from your dictionary, neither are real. If we take the mathematical definition, 2 is and i isn't. If we define real as 'useful for modelling reality', both are real. If we take PS's definition of 'having physical existence', neither are real. If we take Definition 3, or your definition, which look roughly similar, I don't know yet as they haven't been sufficiently explicated for me.

Then what has been the point of all of your arguing? I said i is not real, and you disagreed with me. I said 2 is real, and you disagreed with me. By my defintion of real, the one that the five dictionary definitions illustrate together in their totality, 2 is real and i is not.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

But this is what you essentially said. You said that numbers are a quantity of something physical. A measure is a concept. All concepts can be conveyed through numeric values.. If numbers truly exists in a timeless reality, that means that every instance of a number already exists. This means that all concepts involving matter are real. You are right in one sense though. Despite what you've said, your definition of real means that ALL concepts must be real including Atlantis. This is because what we conceive has two elements: our perceptions and manipulation of those perceptions. Since all conception consists of either percieving physical reality or manipulating that perception (all possible manipulations already being commited by the timeless numbers), this means that all concepts must be real.

A measure is more than a concept. Your interpretation of what I said is invalid. Again, concepts are real but what they are of are not always real.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Also your rebuttal of the mod1 approach is invalid. The mod1 approach to numbers is the most fundumental numeric system possible. All other numbers are just constructs (i.e concepts) built upon 1's though I guess your system defines those as real. You are placing false significence to the mod9 system. Whats more is you seem to not understand that by being able to signify each increment with a new placeholder, the very idea of 2 being primeval ceases to work. Don't dismiss such an important distinction as trivial just because you fail to understand it.

Perhaps you didn't explain your point well enough, but what you said did not invalidate 2 as a reality. You seemed to present merely a different way of classifying/naming it. This many ** is this many ** under any legitimate system. And yes, I do define numbers like 1 and 2 as real. So did the mathematicians who classified them as "real numbers."

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

The water drop example was more of a joke

Oh, okay. Right. Sure, man. All right.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

but illustrates an important point: the concept of 2 is largly a mental construct. For example lets go back to the water drop analogy in more detail. Lets add the water drop to the other water drop. Now there are numerous ways of looking at our end result. You can say as you did that we end up with a water drop with twice the volume. However since its bound by shared surface tension and intramolecular bounds its still one water drop. We could also look at it and treat the new water drop as a different entity. If numbers exist outside of time, doesn't this also mean that they are free of the bounds of cause and effect? Calling it a brand new water drop is easily posssible because the timeless nature of numbers allow you to compartmantize the time line that you use in your evaluation. Also I'm not your pupil you prick and I was wondering why I couldn't like madmonkey's comment.

2 is not a mental construct. It is just that communicating about it requires language, which requires definitions. Numbers are not free from cause and effect in general, but they can exist indepently from temporal cause and effect relationships, though they are involved in them. They are not involved in them solely. Again, it is true that you can converge 2 water drops as 1 water drop. That does not mean that 1 + 1 = 1 any more than the fact that 1 number + 1 number = 1 (other) number proves it. You are dismissed from class for now.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

Anyone else got any metaphysical Paradoxes to get this discussion back on topic.

Yes. This statement is false. Is that statement false?

I think the nature of it disproves the law of the excluded middle.

Are truth and falsehood real?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They all mean the same thing, but in different specific ways. They all mean "actual." Things can be actual in terms of existence, legitimacy, and other things. Fake silk is not imaginary, but its existence as true silk is imaginary. That is how it is not real silk. Do you see the connection?

What does 'actual' mean?

How can a set of definitions for A possibly not contradict each other if one of the definitions says object X is A and another definition says object X isn't A? That is the definition of a contradiction.

Do you think there is no such thing as a homonym?

Then what has been the point of all of your arguing? I said i is not real, and you disagreed with me. I said 2 is real, and you disagreed with me. By my defintion of real, the one that the five dictionary definitions illustrate together in their totality, 2 is real and i is not.

Quote the post where I disagreed with you. And don't pull any nonsense where I was using PS's definition of real.

At the start of this conversation I said that both parties hadn't defined real sufficiently, and that the question would be trivial once they had done so, and there wasn't any real argument. Since then all I have ever done is ask you to clarify your definition of real. I'm still not satisfied. Those five definitions don't illustrate anything in their totality. They are not supposed to, because they are patently mutually contradictory. Question: is fake silk real? Yes or no.

Originally Posted by Xei

What does 'actual' mean?

What does "does" mean?

Originally Posted by Xei

How can a set of definitions for A possibly not contradict each other if one of the definitions says object X is A and another definition says object X isn't A? That is the definition of a contradiction.

It doesn't say that. It expresses different forms of C.

Originally Posted by Xei

Do you think there is no such thing as a homonym?

I believe there is such a thing. Homonyms are real, yet they are not made of matter. The word "real" is not a homonym. It is a word with a broad meaning that encompasses several submeanings.

Originally Posted by Xei

Quote the post where I disagreed with you. And don't pull any nonsense where I was using PS's definition of real.

Here is the "nonsense."

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

You used his definition of the word. The definition is false, and you expressed support for it. By the reasoning you used there, 2 is not real. In making that point, you were disagreeing with me. If he had defined 2 as "made of ice cream," would you have expressed such support?

Originally Posted by Xei

At the start of this conversation I said that both parties hadn't defined real sufficiently, and that the question would be trivial once they had done so, and there wasn't any real argument. Since then all I have ever done is ask you to clarify your definition of real. I'm still not satisfied. Those five definitions don't illustrate anything in their totality. They are not supposed to, because they are patently mutually contradictory.

No, they are not contradictory. They are all forms of being actual.

Well this is probably completely irrelevent by now and perhaps someone has already said it but I wanted comment on the OP; the issue with an infinite being having to experience infinite moments in order to reach the present assumes that an infinite being necessarily experiences time as a linear sequence of discreet instances which isn't the only possibility.



And to make a half hearted attempt to jump into the topic du jour; 2 is both real and a mental construct.....

They're participating in masturbatory regressive reasoning.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

And to make a half hearted attempt to jump into the topic du jour; 2 is both real and a mental construct.....

I agree with that. What I meant was that 2 is not merely a mental construct. All concepts are mental constructs, but many are also direct interpretations of reality.

Originally Posted by Phion

They're participating in masturbatory regressive reasoning.

That's funny. But if you are serious in saying I am doing that, please explain the regressive reasoning part.