The religion of "no beginning".

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. You said previously that quantities of similar objects exist.

You expressly said "similar", not "identical". Look here:

And quantities of similar objects do exist.

You made two contradictory statements there.

So, which of these two statements do you think was the wrong thing for you to say?
EB

 

[untermensche]

To say two objects are similar requires a mind. It requires subtracting all the ways they differ and saying the differences do not matter, only the similarities do.

It is a mental abstraction.

Not something in the world.

No mind, no similar objects. Just distinct objects.

How do we have similar objects without a mind to subtract all the differences and say they do not matter?

 

[Speakpigeon]

To say two objects are similar requires a mind. It requires subtracting all the ways they differ and saying the differences do not matter, only the similarities do.

It is a mental abstraction.

Not something in the world.

No mind, no similar objects. Just distinct objects.

So, you changed your mind after you asserted that quantities of similar objects exist.

So you can change your mind. This is reassuring.

Could you go so far as to explicitly admitting to it?

How do we have similar objects without a mind to subtract all the differences and say they do not matter?

You still haven't answered the question below. Remember?

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

Take your time but me I would assume that minds can only do what nature does. So, if minds are able to abstract quantity from sets of objects, surely nature can do it too. I would even assume that minds can do it only because nature can do it and minds are just a part of nature.
EB

 

[Juma]

To say two objects are similar requires a mind. It requires subtracting all the ways they differ and saying the differences do not matter, only the similarities do.

It is a mental abstraction.

Not something in the world.

No mind, no similar objects. Just distinct objects.

How do we have similar objects without a mind to subtract all the differences and say they do not matter?

You need a mind to distinguish object from non-object: no mind-> no objects.

 

[untermensche]

So, you changed your mind after you asserted that quantities of similar objects exist.

No.

Not in the least. They exist in the mind, not out in the world.

In case you have forgotten my contention it is that "three" does not exist out in the world. It exists only in minds.

- - - Updated - - -

To say two objects are similar requires a mind. It requires subtracting all the ways they differ and saying the differences do not matter, only the similarities do.

It is a mental abstraction.

Not something in the world.

No mind, no similar objects. Just distinct objects.

How do we have similar objects without a mind to subtract all the differences and say they do not matter?

You need a mind to distinguish object from non-object: no mind-> no objects.

Sure. No mind no quantities.

"Three" only exists in the mind.

In the world only distinct and different entities exist. Three does not.

 

[Kharakov]

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

He's missing the threeness of three. And the actual existence of imaginary entities like himself.

 

[bilby]

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.

Perhaps not; but you should be able to. Or you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

If you have the ability to explain, being asked to do so is no great imposition; so why not just do so, rather than waste effort on protesting about your lack of obligation?

If you don't have the ability to explain, then you are unqualified for the conversion you are engaged in, and should find out before resuming this line of argument.

 

[DBT]

No.

Not in the least. They exist in the mind, not out in the world.

In case you have forgotten my contention it is that "three" does not exist out in the world. It exists only in minds.

- - - Updated - - -

You need a mind to distinguish object from non-object: no mind-> no objects.

Sure. No mind no quantities.

"Three" only exists in the mind.

In the world only distinct and different entities exist. Three does not.

Meh, the objects exist in their own right, one, two, three, etc, but it is we who assign numbers and values to the objects being counted or classified. Three blind mice, four furry rabbits, 99 bottles of beer....

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a nice twist in the argument for the reality of numbers, which is that numbers seem to be essentially information, data, and that some people at least have this idea that information is the only reality. The rest would be illusory.

There may be no compelling argument for this view, not yet at least, but there's a certain elegance to it and there may be a way to connect it to the idea, to which I subscribe, that our mind is the only thing we really know to exist.

Broadly, the connection is that information would exist as mind-like stuff. No practical application that I could see, but it would greatly simplify our view of reality. The flip side would be that we probably don't want people like Goooggle, Microosooft and Faacebbok, to become the de facto experts in this mind stuff.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No.

Not in the least. They exist in the mind, not out in the world.

In case you have forgotten my contention it is that "three" does not exist out in the world. It exists only in minds.

- - - Updated - - -

You need a mind to distinguish object from non-object: no mind-> no objects.

Sure. No mind no quantities.

"Three" only exists in the mind.

In the world only distinct and different entities exist. Three does not.

Meh, the objects exist in their own right, one, two, three, etc, but it is we who assign numbers and values to the objects being counted or classified. Three blind mice, four furry rabbits, 99 bottles of beer....

Individual distinct objects do exist.

"Three" does not. Except as a conception in a mind.

No matter where you look you will not find "zero" or "three" or "infinity".

 

[bilby]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

 

[untermensche]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

 

[bilby]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[untermensche]

Individual distinct objects do exist.

"Three" does not. Except as a conception in a mind.

No matter where you look you will not find "zero" or "three" or "infinity".

 

[bilby]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

Thank you for this succinct example.

 

[untermensche]

Individual distinct objects do exist.

"Three" does not. Except as a conception in a mind.

No matter where you look you will not find "zero" or "three" or "infinity".

This thread is not about what small minds think of me.

 

[DBT]

Meh, the objects exist in their own right, one, two, three, etc, but it is we who assign numbers and values to the objects being counted or classified. Three blind mice, four furry rabbits, 99 bottles of beer....

Individual distinct objects do exist.

"Three" does not. Except as a conception in a mind.

No matter where you look you will not find "zero" or "three" or "infinity".

But if I say there are 99 bottles of beer on the wall, anyone who understands maths knows how many bottles of beer there are on the wall without having to count bottles for themselves. Mathematics, counting, adding, subtracting, dividing, formula, etc, being a means of processing and conveying information. There are 99 bottles of beer on the wall, not 98, not a 100...

 

[untermensche]

Meh, the objects exist in their own right, one, two, three, etc, but it is we who assign numbers and values to the objects being counted or classified. Three blind mice, four furry rabbits, 99 bottles of beer....

Individual distinct objects do exist.

"Three" does not. Except as a conception in a mind.

No matter where you look you will not find "zero" or "three" or "infinity".

But if I say there are 99 bottles of beer on the wall, anyone who understands maths knows how many bottles of beer there are on the wall without having to count bottles for themselves. Mathematics, counting, adding, subtracting, dividing, formula, etc, being a means of processing and conveying information. There are 99 bottles of beer on the wall, not 98, not a 100...

I agree.

Numbers, while imaginary, have use to animals that can understand the abstraction.

An animal can use numbers to do amazing things.

Chomsky has looked at numbers as words for a long time. He see's the ability to abstract the different into the similar as part of the cognitive process that allows us to understand many words.

"Leaf" is not something in the world. A specific entity we might call a leaf is in the world, but "leaf" is not.

Many labels are abstractions the way numbers are abstractions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've just learned there is such a thing as 'abstract mud'.

Humanity just made a tremendous leap forward.

We'll all have to think about it a little longer just to make sure we understand the profundity of this puzzle.

If all of our days could be so muddily illuminating!

I'm not going to wash for a week!
EB

 

[untermensche]

What you just wrote could appear after any post written at any time.

In other words it has zero content.

Another way to say it is you have no point.

An abstraction takes place when you totally ignore the differences and call two things "similar". Things may have similarities but they have differences too. Are they similar or different? Only a mind can decide.

Humans can do it without thinking about it.

That doesn't mean it can happen without a mind. Without a mind there are no objects, no similarities, no numbers.

Numbers cannot be found out in the world. They have been invented.