Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

wtf wrote:It can't be a positive integer, for the well-known reason that if there were an uninteresting positive integer, there would be a least such; and that itself would make it interesting.

My vote would go to any noncomputable real number. The fact that noncomputable numbers (numbers whose decimal digits can not possibly be generated by any algorithm; essentially random bitstrings) exist is interesting.

But no particular random real (synonym for noncomputable real) can be interesting; for the reason that no random real can be characterized by any property at all.

For example the number pi, even though it's irrational and has an endless, nonrepeating decimal representation, is still computable. It can be described in finitely many symbols by the expression, "The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry," and its decimal digits can be cranked out to any desired length (given sufficient computational resources) such as the famous Leibniz formula pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_f ... for_%CF%80

There are uncountably many random reals. They are points on the number line that can not be described by algorithms. Any one of them has nothing interesting about it at all. It has no properties that distinguish it from any other.

The answer is there is no such number. Google my question and read Wikipedia.

PhilX

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

wtf wrote:It can't be a positive integer, for the well-known reason that if there were an uninteresting positive integer, there would be a least such; and that itself would make it interesting.

My vote would go to any noncomputable real number. The fact that noncomputable numbers (numbers whose decimal digits can not possibly be generated by any algorithm; essentially random bitstrings) exist is interesting.

But no particular random real (synonym for noncomputable real) can be interesting; for the reason that no random real can be characterized by any property at all.

For example the number pi, even though it's irrational and has an endless, nonrepeating decimal representation, is still computable. It can be described in finitely many symbols by the expression, "The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry," and its decimal digits can be cranked out to any desired length (given sufficient computational resources) such as the famous Leibniz formula pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_f ... for_%CF%80

There are uncountably many random reals. They are points on the number line that can not be described by algorithms. Any one of them has nothing interesting about it at all. It has no properties that distinguish it from any other.

The answer is there is no such number. Google my question and read Wikipedia.

PhilX

There is no number in the world that I have less interest in than your phone number. QED your answer is wrong.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
The answer is there is no such number. Google my question and read Wikipedia.

PhilX

There is no number in the world that I have less interest in than your phone number. QED your answer is wrong.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. As I already explained, interesting/uninteresting is a personal choice.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Exactly.. You're not important QED I'm right.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...

Since you say you're done, then I take it you ran out of arguments. Better luck to you in the future.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...

Since you say you're done, then I take it you ran out of arguments. Better luck to you in the future.

PhilX

Not really, he's done because you refused to engage in the argument about number that he put forward so no point in continuing.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I disagree.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I disagree.

PhilX

Try doing some philosophy then and take his argument on-board and show how it is wrong.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
His argument drifted off-topic so I have no desire to continue this.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
His argument drifted off-topic so I have no desire to continue this.

PhilX

Bollocks, you are deluded as his argument was bang-on topic but it was you who avoided it's import and the ramification for your thought. Mainly I think because you are not here to philosophise but to self-aggrandise in some weird way.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I disagree.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I disagree.

PhilX

My point made.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you happy.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you happy.

PhilX

It does, as it's nice to watch you flounder when presented with a good argument as it demonstrates what I say about you.