Metaphysician Undercover

Temporal/spatial was just one type of order, fishfry and Lluke gave examples of many other types. So we're not restricted to temporal/spatial order in...

Take a look at my quote above, and the context from where it's taken. You are arguing a philosophy of truth. That's exactly what makes arguing for mat...

As I explained, the objects, as existing objects, have an inherent order, so it is wrong to deny that the objects have an inherent order. The inherent...

Let me explain it clearly then, since you seem to be having trouble understanding. When someone accepts, believes in, and adheres to principles which ...

What is the set then? You already said it's not the names. If it's the individual people named, then they necessarily have spatial temporal positionin...

When you reject such, and insist on the other, it's dogmaticism.

Wise decision, the dogmatic don't provide reasonable discourse.

Sextus Empiricus against the dogmatist's criteria of truth:

I specified the order. It is a spatial order, the one demonstrated by the diagram. Why is this difficult for you to understand? When a diagram shows u...

Examples like that is how fishfry convinced me otherwise. I believe I already did. It's a spatial order, each dot has its own specific position on the...

Before and after, are temporal terms. Fishfry had rejected the notion that "order" is based in spatial-temporal relations, and wanted an order based i...

I really don't see how the qualification "numerical" is relevant , or even meaningful in the context of dots on a plane. So I don't see why you think ...

Actually "numerical order" (whatever that is supposed to mean in reference to a diagram of dots) was not specified. It was simply asserted that the el...

Contradiction may be implied. Here's Wikipedia's opening statement: 'In traditional logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility or in...

Come on TIDF, don't you see that as a ridiculous question? If one could predict the bad things that were going to happen, before they happened, then w...

No, as I explained. The numeral 2 represents how many objects there are. We could also call that symbol the number 2, which represents how many object...

That's not true. I simply don't accept it as a realistic notion of "truth", and don't want to waste my time discussing it. I didn't answer, because it...

That about sums it up. Math is like religion, a whole bunch of bullshit which we are told to accept on faith.

Sorry Tones, but we're so far apart on these principles of truth and falsity, that I see no place to start, or any point to it. I look at truth as cor...

For sure it's possible, the difficulty would be to demonstrate falsity, and this would require reference to some sort of inconsistency. What else coul...

If an axiom is false then the proof is unsound.

Notice, the quoted passage says numbers are assumed when "you" count. And, it's your count that I argue is false. . You are back to your pathetic stra...

Do you understand the meaning of the word "if"? I don't think it's me who's the confused one. That "elements" may exist without an order is the falsit...

I explained this already. Your "ascending order" is based on quantity, therefore your supposed "count" of ascending order means nothing unless it is d...

In a logical proceeding, it is imperative that the symbol employed maintains the same meaning, to avoid the fallacy of equivocation. If "beating" mean...

I think you need to reread my post. I have no desire to respond to your misinterpretation. Thanks for the clarification fishfry, but here's a couple m...

Now you just have a vicious circle. What does the numeral "2" refer to? The imaginary object which is the number 2. What is the number 2? The imaginar...

I surely have not denied that "5" has conceptual meaning. To say that the numeral "5", when it is properly used, must refer to five distinct particula...

Right, and the reason why I argued this is that we ought not have two distinct activities going by the same name in a rigorous logical system, because...

The point is to avoid equivocation which is a logical fallacy. Since one sense of "counting" involves counting real things, then why not call this "re...

That's me, the dumpster arsonist. Easiest way to dispose of garbage is to burn it. Not so good for the environment though. But neither is garbage.

Yes, i call it "counting", but the point is that there's two very distinct senses of "counting" and to avoid ambiguity and equivocation we ought to ha...

"Counting the natural numbers", as described here, is a matter of established an order. It is not an instance of counting in the sense of determining ...

Counting is not "the same as measuring", it's a form of measuring. What is required for measuring is a standard, The standard for counting is "the uni...

If "count" is defined as determining the quantity of, then it is an act of measuring. We can't measure imaginary things. But we can describe an order ...

As I said, that's an order, one imagined thing after the other, it's not a quantity.

Luke, learn how to read! The representations, (which is what we count), exist as symbols. I did not say that the imaginary things exist as symbols. Yo...

That's a false quote. I said "we are not really counting the imaginary things, but symbols or representations of them". You said they only exist as sy...

Yes, I've apprehend this, and I respect it. I know that's why you keep on engaging me. it's not easy to understand unorthodox and unconventional ways ...

All I saw in you demonstration was a spatial ordering of symbols. I really do not see how to derive a purely abstract order from this. If you truly th...

Nothing exists as it's representation, or else we would not call it a representation, it would be the thing itself..

Symbols are not imaginary.

Oh dear. Did you not read that section of the thread, where I described the difference between quantity and order? It's odd that you wouldn't read tho...

Let' just say, it's existence is supported by empirical evidence. But we could go to the law of identity for our definition if you want. Sorry, your q...

Then why do you ask me to repeat myself? Look, I think it's very important for a rigorous mathematics to distinguish between counting real things, and...

Read my last post.

We've been talking about what it means to count. And we've determine that the count starts at one. If you know of some other way of counting which is ...

The question was whether there could be a count if there are no books.. If no books are counted, do you consider this to be a count? I think that if n...

I think the issue here is that the electron does not have any real existence as a particle at all. It is a particular quantity of energy, and we, as h...