The religion of "no beginning".

[Jon Osterman]

Infinity is an imaginary concept invented by humans.

It was not discovered and cannot be observed in any way.

You would need to give me very substantial reasons why you think it is rational to apply it to real things.

Do you also think "zero" is an imaginary concept? That cannot be observed in any way either.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is an imaginary concept invented by humans.

It was not discovered and cannot be observed in any way.

You would need to give me very substantial reasons why you think it is rational to apply it to real things.

Do you also think "zero" is an imaginary concept? That cannot be observed in any way either.

Yes.

The number 3 is imaginary too. You will not find it out in the world.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Do you also think "zero" is an imaginary concept? That cannot be observed in any way either.

Yes.

The number 3 is imaginary too. You will not find it out in the world.

OK... So if you go to the shops and something you want to buy is $3, what do you do? Do you tell the assistant that 3 is an imaginary concept invented by humans and refuse to buy the item? Or does the concept of 3 have some use in describing an everyday object, thereby justifying handing over $3?

 

[bilby]

Do you also think "zero" is an imaginary concept? That cannot be observed in any way either.

Yes.

The number 3 is imaginary too. You will not find it out in the world.

OK... So if you go to the shops and something you want to buy is $3, what do you do? Do you tell the assistant that 3 is an imaginary concept invented by humans and refuse to buy the item? Or does the concept of 3 have some use in describing an everyday object, thereby justifying handing over $3?

That depends; does paying the $3 entail untermensche admitting the possibility that he might be mistaken about a treasured but totally false belief?

 

[beero1000]

OK... So if you go to the shops and something you want to buy is $3, what do you do? Do you tell the assistant that 3 is an imaginary concept invented by humans and refuse to buy the item? Or does the concept of 3 have some use in describing an everyday object, thereby justifying handing over $3?

That depends; does paying the $3 entail untermensche admitting the possibility that he might be mistaken about a treasured but totally false belief?

Logical consistency is an imaginary concept and cannot be used to describe anything real in untermensche's worldview.

 

[untermensche]

Do you also think "zero" is an imaginary concept? That cannot be observed in any way either.

Yes.

The number 3 is imaginary too. You will not find it out in the world.

OK... So if you go to the shops and something you want to buy is $3, what do you do? Do you tell the assistant that 3 is an imaginary concept invented by humans and refuse to buy the item? Or does the concept of 3 have some use in describing an everyday object, thereby justifying handing over $3?

Three dollars is not imaginary. Three items are not imaginary.

Three is imaginary. You will not find "3" in any shop.

 

[Jon Osterman]

But the concept of $3 requires the concept of the number 3, does it not? In other words, you are using an abstract concept to describe something useful and real.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

 

[untermensche]

But the concept of $3 requires the concept of the number 3, does it not? In other words, you are using an abstract concept to describe something useful and real.

Just because something is imaginary does not mean it can't be useful.

 

[untermensche]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the symbol . You can observe three entities. But you cannot observe "3" itself. It is an imaginary conception.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the symbol . You can observe three entities. But you cannot observe "3" itself. It is an imaginary conception.

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

 

[untermensche]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the symbol . You can observe three entities. But you cannot observe "3" itself. It is an imaginary conception.

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the number three. The symbol of three. But you can't observe just " three".

"Three" is a concept in the mind. Something we as humans can comprehend. But it is not something in the world. You can't see it or find it.

Where is "three"? Not three of some item, not the symbol, just "three"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the number three. The symbol of three. But you can't observe just " three".

"Three" is a concept in the mind. Something we as humans can comprehend. But it is not something in the world. You can't see it or find it.

Where is "three"? Not three of some item, not the symbol, just "three"?

Are you sure?

How is it that we are able to perceive at all the similarity between three dollar bills, three cows in a shed, three debaters on television, three stars in the corner of the sky making up a constellation, three cars parked in front of the police station, three ideas we agree on? And all this very nearly without a fail?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Not fair. You're pitting grouping against symbol using. Some don't put such together readily.

 

[Juma]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the number three. The symbol of three. But you can't observe just " three".

"Three" is a concept in the mind. Something we as humans can comprehend. But it is not something in the world. You can't see it or find it.

Where is "three"? Not three of some item, not the symbol, just "three"?

Hm.. what do you mean with ”observe”? We can observe all sorts of abstract stuff. Do you mean something else?

 

[untermensche]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the number three. The symbol of three. But you can't observe just " three".

"Three" is a concept in the mind. Something we as humans can comprehend. But it is not something in the world. You can't see it or find it.

Where is "three"? Not three of some item, not the symbol, just "three"?

Hm.. what do you mean with ”observe”? We can observe all sorts of abstract stuff. Do you mean something else?

I should not have to explain what observe means.

No matter where you look in the universe you will not detect "three".

"Three" is something we add to phenomena with our minds. It exists only in our minds.

 

[untermensche]

What is it about dollar bills that we can observe that we can't with the number three?
EB

You can observe the number three. The symbol of three. But you can't observe just " three".

"Three" is a concept in the mind. Something we as humans can comprehend. But it is not something in the world. You can't see it or find it.

Where is "three"? Not three of some item, not the symbol, just "three"?

Are you sure?

How is it that we are able to perceive at all the similarity between three dollar bills, three cows in a shed, three debaters on television, three stars in the corner of the sky making up a constellation, three cars parked in front of the police station, three ideas we agree on? And all this very nearly without a fail?
EB

Similar objects do exist.

And quantities of similar objects do exist.

Arbitrarily separating three similar objects from the rest of the universe takes a mind.

The concept of "three" does not exist anywhere except in the mind. It is not something that could be discovered in the world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you sure?

How is it that we are able to perceive at all the similarity between three dollar bills, three cows in a shed, three debaters on television, three stars in the corner of the sky making up a constellation, three cars parked in front of the police station, three ideas we agree on? And all this very nearly without a fail?
EB

Similar objects do exist.

And quantities of similar objects do exist.

Three is exactly a quantity.

So, you've just admitted to the existence of three.

Thanks!

Bravo!

Arbitrarily separating three similar objects from the rest of the universe takes a mind.

The concept of "three" does not exist anywhere except in the mind. It is not something that could be discovered in the world.

I was never talking about the concept of three.

I was talking about three as a quantity.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Three is exactly a quantity.

So, you've just admitted to the existence of three.

As an abstraction.

You don't ever really have "three" oranges. You have one round thing that is a slightly different orange from that other round thing and it has bumps in different places. You have one of each distinct entity. To call them "three" of the same entity is an abstraction.

We abstract and say the similar is the same and create an arbitrary quantity.

If I put three dogs and a coyote in a pen and a person did not know a coyote was not a dog they would say there were four dogs in the pen. Four similar things. But really three of one thing and one of another. But in "truth" four distinct entities with a lot of differences that can easily be overlooked.

It is an arbitrary grouping. We do it without thinking about it. We cannot help ourselves. We continually abstract away what is different and classify things as the same and make arbitrary groupings.

"Three" does not exist in the world except as a word and a symbol.

"Three" exists in the mind where similar things can be transformed into the same thing.

 

[OLDMAN]

When you add more of one thing, you have an increase in mass...humans use numbers to indicate groupings without knowing the weight or size increase of the groupings. It is a very practical but not accurate measurement of things.