I hereby create the new set: “half-things” 
Yes, that too. You see? You learn.
How dare you!
I already know that I am utterly clueless about everything.
I have no clues
Are we really doing the what does 1 mean thing…?
You know what? What is the opposition argument here? Can you steelman it?
Write 1 with a red pen and 1 with a blue pen.
What is the result of “summation”?
If you focus on the pen, the answer is 1 with a purple pen.
If you focus on the abstract numbers and you ignore the color, the answer is 2.
Numbers have a practical usage. At the beginning of human civilization they allowed to group things together. If this need is not necessary, the numbers become irrelevant. A few animals are only capable of numbering, because it has some usage for them.
The number zero was invented by Indians thousands of years after ancient civilizations developed maths. How, thus, can we claim that zero has some kind of absolute meaning?
We frequently think that the concepts we use in our everyday life have somehow universal and absolute meaning. This is anthropocentric approach.
If you’re counting objects in a room, then they kinda do.
I think you needed to broaden what the set could describe—the set could be “how many things I did on Friday”, for example. Why do the elements have to have similar properties? That’s the bit I don’t understand..
1 Like
They would be able to count “animals” though.. That’s a pretty diverse set.
The set I use here is related to the mathematical concept of set. Yes, any kind of assemblage you want can be called a set.
For numbers we have the set of integers, the set of real numbers etc. 2,3 belongs to the second set, not the first.
In mathematics, a set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects, known as elements or members. These elements can be numbers, letters, geometric shapes, variables, functions, or even other sets. Sets are fundamental in mathematics and serve as the foundation for defining nearly all other mathematical concepts.
The elements can be geometric shapes. Also pretty diverse.. you could argue that two apples are far more likely to have more in common than two randomly generated geometric shapes. And other sets? Whole new can of worms..
Also that ^^^, but now we switched to mathematics?
Some experiments on rats, pigeons, chimpanzees and a few other spieces that I forget showed that these animals have the ability to count.The easiest demonstration is when you put two piles of food in front of them and they are capable to recognize the bigger pile.
Their ability to count is often manifested when these animals have a specific interest.
PS We switched to mathematics when I was asked what is 1+1.
My whole point is: 1+1 can mean 2 or it can be meaningless if you do not specify the context.
Is there evidence that those animals can only count effectively where objects with high similarity are presented? That sounds worth looking into.
Ah I get you. Well that’s defo true IMO.
I have read an interesting book of Stanislas Dehaene, called “The number sense”. At the first chapters he explained what type of experiments have been done to prove the ability of animals to count.
I would like your post there but I’m out of likes, quite literally. I thought of something concerning your point about specifying context when counting.
If a small child comes up to you and says out of the blue “I have two”, then the child knows the context, but you don’t, so for you 2 is meaningless. I guess all numbers are. If you see a sheet of paper in a factory office, and it has total items on it, without describing the nature of the items themselves, then it is also meaningless.
1 Like
Yep, that’s also a very good point. My fault is that I did not specify it from the beginning like that and I ended up in long explanations.
It’s not easy writing your exact thoughts in order in a foreign language, I’ve tried that too. But you’re giving it a bloody good go, so kudos.
1 Like
Guys…you are not listening…all of the sciences are interconnected…as attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes do not cancel out in the cosmos (confirmed by observation) and these forces are interacted in such a way as to be able to explain all of the sciences then there is more solid evidence that moral absolutes exist because the cosmos is a perfectly designed and balanced system. You only realize this when you adopt the correct starting philosophy for science which is +/-=+/- and not +=- and -=+ BECAUSE attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes do not cancel out.This also explains the claim “You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist” because the individual is unable to cancel themself out.
The individual exists and claims to either be a representation of reality (a non illusion) OR a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).We’ve done illusionary science and it doesn’t work, as we all know.It’s time to pursue non illusionary science because it does work.
Ok Jupiter123, let’s play this game once more (last time I am afraid, because I am getting tired).
Can you please give us the names of the scientists that make claims about the electromagnetic force absolutes? I looked on google scholar and such term does not appear.
A scientific article could also do the trick, a simple DOI number is sufficient.
If you cannot show us a reference, it will be once more proven that you are a liar who pretends to believe that exist, while you believe the opposite.
You’re getting tired…LOL!!! …I’m getting tired of explaining truth to you all…I am not a liar…explain how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force ABSOLUTES cancel out in the cosmos. Find a scientist that can if you can’t…neither of you will be able to explain how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos and yet mainstream science is all founded upon the GUESS that they do.
Are you claiming that they don’t cancel out then?..LOL!!! …you certainly aren’t going to commit to answering that one are you because you are a liar who exists because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.
Do you know what DOI number is? You seem to know a lot about mainstream science, so you should probably be able to answer that.
There you go…deflecting again…that’s what we want to see!!! … lol!!! … neither you nor any scientist in the world can prove that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos.PERIOD…and scientific observations have confirmed that they don’t cancel out because the cosmos and all matter within it is vibrating so the cosmos is expanding and contracting and not just expanding as fake mainstream science claims.