Mathematics Is Not A Fact

Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reputation
0
Daps
443
Reppin
NULL
so 1+1=2 could be dis proven?

to do that you would need to proof what "1" is

for example "1" apple is actually an aggregate of atoms, which are aggregates of things like protons and electrons, which are (maybe) aggregates of things like strings, which we cant prove

thus "1" is in this case, just a representation of something, and not literally the thing as it is in reality
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
to do that you would need to proof what "1" is

for example "1" apple is actually an aggregate of atoms, which are aggregates of things like protons and electrons, which are (maybe) aggregates of things like strings, which we cant prove

thus "1" is in this case, just a representation of something, and not literally the thing as it is in reality

I've heard several people say this in my life and they have all worked at whole foods and believe in chakras. I swear I'm not lying either.

What you are doing is confusing the numerical concept of one and classification and scale of matter.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reputation
0
Daps
443
Reppin
NULL
thats still not a rebuttal. you have to explain why you think classification is objective and not just a representation of objectivity.

to do that, you must be able to proof everything in reality exists exactly in the way you say it does.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
thats still not a rebuttal. you have to explain why you think classification is objective and not just a representation of objectivity.

to do that, you must be able to proof everything in reality exists exactly in the way you say it does.

That would be a fine argument, if you didn't make the same "mistake" in making your original point:

for example "1" apple is actually an aggregate of atoms, which are aggregates of things like protons and electrons, which are (maybe) aggregates of things like strings, which we cant prove

thus "1" is in this case, just a representation of something, and not literally the thing as it is in reality

An aggregate of atoms is enumeration and description of matter occupying physical space (in this case). You counted.

For an aggregate to exist, the numerical concept of one (and other numbers) must exist.

So which one is it?
 

Bud Bundy

A Bundy never cares
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
13,984
Reputation
1,632
Daps
22,464
to do that you would need to proof what "1" is

for example "1" apple is actually an aggregate of atoms, which are aggregates of things like protons and electrons, which are (maybe) aggregates of things like strings, which we cant prove

thus "1" is in this case, just a representation of something, and not literally the thing as it is in reality

:shaq2:

regardless of it's make up in reality how did you count the atoms or number of strings.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
:shaq2:

regardless of it's make up in reality how did you count the atoms or number of strings.

He can't. His entire argument is invalidated by the very argument itself.

I would ask him a question but I know he wouldn't answer it honestly because it would shatter his argument even more.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reputation
0
Daps
443
Reppin
NULL
For an aggregate to exist, the numerical concept of one (and other numbers) must exist.

yes exactly and we cant know if sub atomic aggregates of things like strings actually exist because we hit a point in reality eventually where things become unknowable

so using your argument, for an aggregate to exist, math presumes there is a "numerical concept of one" that by reduction in some way exists ie all aggregates reduce to single fundamental pieces, which is something we cant physically prove/know yet

eg: it can be argued that reality reduces infinitely, and not to any single piece at all

however we wouldnt have a way to proof the rightness or wrongess of this assertion, since we cant physically test it yet
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
yes exactly and we cant know if sub atomic aggregates of things like strings actually exist because we hit a point in reality eventually where things become unknowable

so using your argument, for an aggregate to exist, math presumes there is a "numerical concept of one" that by reduction in some way exists ie all aggregates reduce to single fundamental pieces, which is something we cant physically prove/know yet

But why are you reducing? It's not the numbers fault you are reducing and re-classifying scale and matter, so the concept of the numbers is still valid.

This is like you asking me to count from 0 to 10, and I start counting:

0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...

and you jump in and say "WRONG!" because I should be counting like this:

0, 1/infinity, 1/(infinity-1), 1/(infinity-2), etc and I would never ever reach 1.

You're changing the rules but you haven't proved the concept of one is not valid.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
Reminds me of the argument I got in when someone told me that math is invalid because it says 0! =1 (zero factorial equals 1), when in their mind it should never equal one.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reputation
0
Daps
443
Reppin
NULL
But why are you reducing? It's not the numbers fault you are reducing and re-classifying scale and matter, so the concept of the numbers is still valid.

This is like you asking me to count from 0 to 10, and I start counting:

0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...

and you jump in and say "WRONG!" because I should be counting like this:

0, 1/infinity, 1/(infinity-1), 1/(infinity-2), etc and I would never ever reach 1.

You're changing the rules but you haven't proved the concept of one is not valid.
yeah thats actually called xeno's paradox wherein to travel from one point to another point you must first travel half of it to get there, but to do that you must first travel to half of that half, and then half of that, and half once again ad infinitum until you no longer can reach your destination at all

you can see from this example the trouble with counting as an objective measure of reality
 
Top