1.  You can't interpret reality, since that implies that the mental construct is outside of reality. The mental construct of 2 itself is a part of reality that is used to represent many physical phenomena (known as pairs) that we as humans percieve. The designation of "2" is entirely dependent on an observer to seperate their perceptions into discreet phenomena and then to assign likeness threshholds in order to make a judgment on groupings. For instance, am I holding 2 apples or 1 green apple and 1 red apple or 1 pair of apples or n number of apple cells or n number of atoms or 200 cubic centimeters of apple and air or 1 lumpy depression in my palm? Feel free to ignore me if I'm just rehashing an argument that everyone is tired of already.

3.  This crossed my mind as possibly being a metaphysical paradox today. If some of the more educated people here with regards to science, mathematics and philosophy think that this is complete nonsense then please say so and why. If it is wrong & I appear completely stupid please leave out any insults as it is getting very tiresome, I have spoken to members recently that avoid Extended Discussion because of this which is a real shame. Anyway, We all know that the numbers 1 & 2 exist and are real quantities. If I have two coins in my pocket and I am unaware of the amount of coins in my pocket I can pull out each coin and count 1 coin, then 2 coins. I can say, 'Yes I have 2 coins'. But if there are an infinite amount numbers between the numbers 1 & 2 then because of the nature of infinity after 1 we can never get to the number 2... This idea perplexes me and hence why I have added it in this thread.

4.  I don't think it's very clear what you mean. Specifically, what does it mean to 'get to' the number 2? At any rate, number systems are just models for various phenomena. In this case, namely discrete objects, we can model it most simply with the naturals, which don't have any numbers between 1 and 2.

5.  Originally Posted by Xei I don't think it's very clear what you mean. Specifically, what does it mean to 'get to' the number 2? At any rate, number systems are just models for various phenomena. In this case, namely discrete objects, we can model it most simply with the naturals, which don't have any numbers between 1 and 2. I thought someone may ask this after I made the post. If there are an infinte amount of numbers between the numbers 1 & 2 then in essence we can never reach the number 2 by counting metaphysically because there are an infinite amount of numbers in between 1 & 2. Sure, I can definately count the number of coins I have in my pocket. I have 2. But counting metaphysically from 1 to 2 can be seen as being impossible if we count using the smallest incremental amounts using the decimal base number system. To illustrate: By counting ('get to' in your reply) in the smallest incremential amounts possible starting with just one decimal place to keep it simple 1.1 leads to 1.9, almost 2, would then eventually lead onto 1.99 and then onto 1.999. This would go on ad infinitum, so in theory we can never reach the number two by counting in the smallest incremential amounts possible to count upwards from 1 to 2 if we use the fact that there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 & 2. Therefore we can say that we can't really count from 1 to 2. But... yes I can as I have two coins in my pocket. Note the seeming metaphysical paradox. I don't understand what a natural number is, although I have heard the term before, and no doubt would explain why my post has no validity. Its been fun though thinking about it

6.  A natural number is just the set of numbers that cultures naturally come up with at first, namely the counting numbers, {1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. Sometimes the naturals are also taken to include 0. My point was that different kinds of number are conceptual structures which are used for different purposes. The most obvious choice for counting things is the naturals, which by definition don't have any numbers in between 1 and 2. Such numbers are not necessary for the consistency of a certain number system. I think you could make your point easier if you considered something naturally modelled by the reals, such as walking from point 0 to point 1.

7.  Originally Posted by Xaqaria The mental construct of 2 itself is a part of reality that is used to represent many physical phenomena (known as pairs) that we as humans percieve. What you're getting at is called the problem of negative existentials, and it's been around for a very long time. Stating something like "pegasus does not exist" might be a true statement until you see that you're denying the existence of the idea of the thing, and not the thing itself, thereby creating a false statement. This kind of reasoning can be ultimately self-defeating, since the idea of pegasus subsists. When you focus on the non-properties of something you're opening up a floodgate of negative facts that doesn't necessarily make what you're questioning to be the case true, rather than what is not the case. By proving the non-existence of an earthquake in Rome, are you proving the same non-earthquake in India? Do things change over time or over space? It depends on how much you want to dismiss, and how much you want reality to rely on metaphor. How much credit does you intellect give to your experience to trust as witness? Would you rather first learn to speak or to see as a child? On the surface, names are the easiest to understand because their meaning is whatever bears the name, unless you begin using the name also as a quantifier, then the name becomes a function in the sentence, not something that is being named; "nobody" as a name, for example. Don't allow missteps in reasoning, and lack of linguistic clarity trick you into hopeless abstraction or absurdity.

9.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind Then what you should say is, "Uh, PS, that's not what 'real' means," instead of being his philosophy forum attorney. I haven't acted as anybody's attorney, the only point I have been making is that both sides would resolve their argument if they defined exactly what they each meant by 'real'. The only reason I'm still talking to you is that you seem dogmatically opposed to providing a functional definition. I don't know why. WTF? The first word is "no." Dodgeball again? You are intelligent enough to know that this response makes no sense. The question was, 'is fake silk real, yes or no'. You didn't attempt to answer it. Let's assume that you keep refusing to answer it because you can't. In that case, all that means, is that for your definition of A, there are certain objects X for which X can be said to be A according to the definition and X can also be said to be not A according to the definition. This is in fact fundamentally what it means to not be well-defined (dictionary definition 3). Checking that a new definition doesn't do this is a regular exercise in mathematical proof (for example, proving that the quotient group is well-defined). Patently one will never be able to determine the answer to 'is 2 real or is 2 not real' if one cannot in general determine the answer to 'is X real or is X not real'. Not everybody here is aware of that. I'm still working on getting some people there. Don't fool yourself UM, you're refusing to even jump the first basic hurdle and give a consistent definition of 'real'.

11.  Originally Posted by Universal Mind Yes, fake silk is real in the sense that I have described "real." The subdefinition involving actuality as applied to genuineness is a minor illustration that helps create the overall picture, but it alone does not involve the overall "real" we are discussing. Correct, it fake silk is real. But it also isn't. The definition says that that which is counterfeit is not real. Is fake silk counterfeit? Yes. Therefore the definition tells us that fake silk is not real. That's how definitions work. That's what the dictionary says. I'm not going to argue about this, it's just bloody stupid. It's right there for everybody to read. Just accept that the concept of a 'holistic dictionary definition' is ill-defined and move on. We cannot possibly use a definition that says something both is and isn't real if we wish to determine whether 2 is real. Very importantly, I gave my own single definition and later brought it up again just for you. We do not need to keep splitting hairs over this. Yes, you did give your own definition. I asked you to clarify and you refused to, on the basis that we should just use the dictionary definitions. As the dictionary definitions are inconsistent, clearly we need to go back to clarifying the single definition that you originally gave. I believe I had asked you to clarify the term 'quantity'.

13.  If I pass out I will not be holding anything as they will surely fall out of my hand. Is that what you meant by "are there zero?" If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to witness, does it make a sound? Are compression waves traveling through air still considered sound if their are no ears to translate them into brain waves? I feel like we have been involved in this same debate for several years now. Have you ever passed out? I did once this past year. I blacked out and collapsed and had a mild seizure from standing up too quickly while being dehydrated. It wasn't the same as falling asleep; my body was still taking in information but I wasn't able to process it. The first thought I was able to process was that someone must be playing radio static very loud which I later realized was actually the sensation of the carpet against my face. If I had been holding two apples during this experience (and miraculously managed to hold on to them) then while I was out, not only would there not be two apples in my hand, but there wouldn't exist apples or objects of any kind at all. Perhaps you watching me would say that there were still two apples but then you would be an observer capable of seperating your perceptions into discreet phenomena and applying likeness values to them. Can you show me two apples that exist independently of any observers?

14.  I for one don't have the hubris to proclaim that everything ceases to exist without myself, or consciousness in general, existing. Then again, I'm not even sure what this 'self' actually is...

17.  Originally Posted by Xei The statement 'everything ceases to exist without myself' is meaningless by the verifiability criterion. Namely: is there any observation I could make which would have a consequence for this statement? There have been a number of meaningless statements throughout this thread, and from an empiricists' point of view you'd be correct about what I said, but to the extent that [philosophical] analysis is concerned you've missed the essence; our knowledge is subject to experience, and without experience everything is meaningless. Here we rely heavily on synthetic statements in order to derive some meaning in an otherwise un-meaningful debate, but for only the sake of argument the meta-physic is not completely dead, nor is the distinction between theoretical and observational philosophy particularly meaningful. There's an apparent over arching positivism here wreaking of quaint correlations and weak presumptions about verification of assertions, although it seems the real paradox lies in our innate, humanly truth value.

18.  I hate to burst all of your bubbles but you're all figments of my imagination.

19.  Originally Posted by RationalMystic I hate to burst all of your bubbles but you're all figments of my imagination. To me, reality is subjective to some but not to others. It is not subjective to me, to me, but it might be subjective to me to you. That might not be the case with Bob. It depends on Marsha's perspective, etc.

20.  <<>> a tain can go into the future infinitely, yet at any point that you see it it is not infinity because it started. In the situation B of the train, it might have always been traveling as far back as you go, but if the moment it stops is connected to the infinite past wouldn't that have made it not infinte anymore and therefor make the situation impossible? Wouldn't that make infinity impossible unless there are other variables i have yet to come up with? Yet that makes me think of how the universe could pop up from nonexistence unless it has always existed or how god could even exist if no one created him. If it was possible for the universe to pop up out of no where then that means the possiblity exists and has existed for infinity. If god wasnt created then that means he might always have existed? If god happend out of nowhere that means the possbility existed always. This also makes me think that if god poped up out of no where through infinite possibility that that might mean that god and the universe are the same thing out of posibility. The last one was just a random thought that I need to look into.

21.  Originally Posted by Name Yet that makes me think of how the universe could pop up from nonexistence unless it has always existed or how god could even exist if no one created him. If it was possible for the universe to pop up out of no where then that means the possiblity exists and has existed for infinity. If god wasnt created then that means he might always have existed? If god happend out of nowhere that means the possbility existed always. This also makes me think that if god poped up out of no where through infinite possibility that that might mean that god and the universe are the same thing out of posibility.. The funny thing about this is the way we have to ask the question is sort of contradictory. You ask when was the universe created or were did the universe come from but those two questions ask about the variables space and time. Space and time only exit within the universe. The question of when did the universe start would have to be a function of another variable entirely, one that we can't even comprehend. I find it funny how our language is confined in some ways that make it hard to talk about metaphysics without being contradictory. I think that was one of the problems with the discussion on the reality of 2.

22.  Ive heard many explanations of time, infinity, etc. When i was young, probably around 6 or 7, i knew that time travel was possible. I didnt know how, but i knew i could figure it out. I was a odd child i guess, at least from my point of view. but anyways, think about this= There is two possibilities, 1: Time is moving, and we are standing still or two: We are moving, and time is standing still. I read somewere that a demon of sorts had created time to "limit" the universe. If you believed in it, and worked around it then time is real. My explanation of time is this = Imagine yourself grabbing a pen, and stricking a surface softly, every time your heart beats(pretty consitent), while watching the sun. You know exactly were the sun was when you first strike the surface, and you count how many times you strike that surface until the sun rotates all the way around the earth and back to the exact place is was in. That would be time. Now on to immortality and mortality. It is physically imposible to be immortal on this physical plane/dimension. Stone buildings dont last forever so neither will your skin. If by some odd happening, you dont age whatsoever(maybe the duplications of cells, with the disposal of the old constantly) it is possible to be immortal. Now pertaining to rocks, and other physical elements= We are all made of stardust, we are made of the earth, and there is not one chemical in your body that didnt come from somewere in the sky. Everything but something that "grows" like a plant or a human, is more than trillions of years old(or however old the f***in universe is). Well thats my 2 cents.

23.  Infinity is a term and should stop trying to be applied to our unniverse as true infinty in our unniverse does not exist. When the events of the big bang occured it happened in a space which contained no "laws", as matter stretched out and increased in size a plane was created - time. This plane is not 2-dimensional it has no dimension but it carries our 3-dimensional world as a law. Every way particles react in our unniverse is governed by the plane which was created by the big bang in the sense that we live in a 3-dimensional world but in another unniverse (If one existed) there could be 4-dimensions. One of the rules of our plane is that its limit is the speed of light and that everything is relative. These two concepts help our understanding of infinity and immortality. For instance the faster an amount of mass goes the more time is stretched around this entity to ensure that light travels at 300000km per second so that time seems equally fast to it (relativity). A great way to show that infinity does not exist in a physical form to us is through wormholes. One could argue that infinty does exist as an infinite amount of energy can be stored in a wormhole, but think of the nature of a wormhole - A wormhole's speed and mass have caused it to break the limits set by our plane and create a hole in it, therefore beyond the event horizon of the blackhole we are not dealing with our own plane but with something unknown which does follow our laws therefore we cannot say that it is energy once it has passed this point. Same with immortality, If one was to use time dilation and break the speed limit they would no longer exist on our unniverses plane becuase it does not allow for this. Its hard to explain but I hope I got my point across.

24.  Originally Posted by MadMonkey I can't stand to listen to things like this anymore... I need to write my paper!

Page 7 of 7 First ... 5 6 7

#### Posting Permissions

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