Numbers

[Immanuel Can]

I figured you might want to take an opportunity to take another jab at atheists since you don't like them much.

Actually, I like them just fine. But there's all the difference in the world between liking a person and agreeing with his worldview. I don't hate people I disagree with; I just disagree with them. And sensible people use reason and evidence to arbitrate the conflict. It all remains perfectly polite.

Here, we discuss worldviews, not people. And nothing we said so far has the slightest thing to do with Atheism. The subject here is the nature of numbers.

So it's not that you have any prejudice against atheists...

Gary, you're being very foolish. Either say something relevant to the topic, or I guess, go somewhere else. Here, you're just utterly irrelevant, at the moment.

Nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the topic, or with anything I've said here.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, I like them just fine. But there's all the difference in the world between liking a person and agreeing with his worldview. I don't hate people I disagree with; I just disagree with them. And sensible people use reason and evidence to arbitrate the conflict. It all remains perfectly polite.

Here, we discuss worldviews, not people. And nothing we said so far has the slightest thing to do with Atheism. The subject here is the nature of numbers.

So it's not that you have any prejudice against atheists...

Gary, you're being very foolish. Either say something relevant to the topic, or I guess, go somewhere else. Here, you're just utterly irrelevant, at the moment.

Nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the topic, or with anything I've said here.

Not sure why I should honor your demand. You never acknowledge when anyone who disagrees with your views has a valid point. And I've seen plenty of valid points made by me and others in response to your beliefs. It doesn't faze you one bit. It doesn't cause a moment of pause and thoughtfulness over the points others make. You either just don't respond to others' points or you throw in some nonsense to derail it. For example, just recently, when I told you how Marx might apply his labor theory of value to Elon Musk, you responded that you weren't aware that Marx knew Elon Musk, as though your reply had any relevance to the point I made.

[Will Bouwman]

I'm afraid you've kind of completely missed my point, Will. I wasn't saying that I, or you, have "a sense of" two-ness or three-ness.

I'm afraid you kind of did:

...one senses "two-ness" when there is a pair of something, and "three-ness" when there is one more...

...one cannot calculate with "redness," because the quality of being red must attach to an object in order to be attributable.

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

Then maybe you'll show me how. Let's see if we can do a "sum in redness." The idea strikes me as exceedingly odd, and almost certainly expressive of a category error. But I won't conclude until I see.

Go ahead, please.

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness, how do you conclude that I think we can do sums in redness?

Go ahead, please.

[Immanuel Can]

So it's not that you have any prejudice against atheists...

Gary, you're being very foolish. Either say something relevant to the topic, or I guess, go somewhere else. Here, you're just utterly irrelevant, at the moment.

Nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the topic, or with anything I've said here.

Not sure why I should honor your demand.

I don't demand anything. The nature of the thread demands it, and the conversation demands it, and proving yourself to have an ounce of common sense might well demand it. But I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm afraid you've kind of completely missed my point, Will. I wasn't saying that I, or you, have "a sense of" two-ness or three-ness.

I'm afraid you kind of did:

...one senses "two-ness" when there is a pair of something, and "three-ness" when there is one more...

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

Then maybe you'll show me how. Let's see if we can do a "sum in redness." The idea strikes me as exceedingly odd, and almost certainly expressive of a category error. But I won't conclude until I see.

Go ahead, please.

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't. I said only that I can't see how it can be done, but you say you do, so I'd like to see you do it, so I can learn how it can be done.

The stage is yours.

[Impenitent]

Do numbers really exist? And if so, in what sense of “really” and “exist”?

I was counting earlier... 1,2,3,4...
then I got hungry... 1,2,3,Pi,4...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Do numbers really exist? And if so, in what sense of “really” and “exist”?

I was counting earlier... 1,2,3,4...
then I got hungry... 1,2,3,Pi,4...

-Imp

∏R not ².
∏R round.

[Impenitent]

what caliber round for an apple pie?

-Imp

[mickthinks]

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't.

But here's the weird thing: one cannot calculate with "redness,"...

lol It seems Manny doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going.

[Gary Childress]

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't.

But here's the weird thing: one cannot calculate with "redness,"...

lol It seems Manny doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going.

Only IC knows if he's coming or going, the rest of us just have to stand by and marvel at his omniscience.

[Will Bouwman]

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't.

Yes, yes...you did:

...one cannot calculate with "redness,"...

I said only that I can't see how it can be done, but you say you do...

No I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't.

Yes, yes...you did:

...one cannot calculate with "redness,"...

I said only that I can't see how it can be done, but you say you do...

No I don't.

Dishonest. You clipped from two conversations back, in order to avoid the problem and misrepresent the conversation.

Here's the whole segment of the conversation.
You said:

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

I responded:

Then maybe you'll show me how. Let's see if we can do a "sum in redness." The idea strikes me as exceedingly odd, and almost certainly expressive of a category error. But I won't conclude until I see.

Go ahead, please.

So you were just bluffing? I kind of knew that, anyway.

[Will Bouwman]

Dishonest. You clipped from two conversations back, in order to avoid the problem and misrepresent the conversation.

Mr Can, if you are going to make such allegations, you might at least be sure that you have cause to do so. You do not. You have misunderstood what I have said:

But here's the weird thing: one cannot calculate with "redness,"...

I can't say that strikes me as weird

...because the quality of being red must attach to an object in order to be attributable.

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

You clearly think that what doesn't strike me as true is that we can't do sums in redness. What I actually don't think true is your explanation for why we can't do sums in redness. It does not follow that I therefore think there are no reasons why we cannot do sums in redness. However, since you are pathologically incapable of admitting an error and hence no apology will be forthcoming, I might as well point out that it would be a trivial matter to attach the same value to shades of red that we do to numbers, and do sums that way.

[Immanuel Can]

What I actually don't think true is your explanation for why we can't do sums in redness.

I didn't suggest any explanation for it. I merely pointed it out.

Can you do sums in redness? If you can't, then it doesn't matter what alleged reason for it you prefer, because it's not even possible, for whatever reason. Similarly, we can't argue over how many unicorns can fit on the head of a pin. It's not an intelligible question. And the reason we cannot do sums in redness, I suggest, is the same: it's not an intelligible idea, because of a category confusion. The term "sums" has no application at all to "redness."

But prove me wrong, if you can. I'd like to see it done.

[Impenitent]

sums in red...

get your pallet, start with Cadmium Red, add some Ultramarine Blue or Burnt Umber and you'll make a deeper red

any artist can mix colors - addition is not limited to numbers (but these go to eleven)

-Imp