Philosophy Now Forum

Magnus Anderson wrote:

A claim as idiotic as, "When you remove the perceivers, you don't get to keep the perceived."

Idealism(immaterialism) is more sceptical , and thus more robust, than realism (materialism)

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm You're the only person in this thread talking about quantification.

I am? So how do you get quantities without quantifiers quantifying?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm To quantify is to determine, or perceive, the quantity of something.

The quantity must be there BEFORE it can be determined or perceived.

That's laughably bad reasoning. Tell me more about determining/perceiving zero planets.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm The fact it's an immaterial thing that you cannot touch with your fingers does not mean it's not there. It just means it's not a physical object.

That's even worse reasoning. If humans ceased to exist where would you even locate immaterial mathematical constructions like numbers ?!?

While humans exist - you could at least posit that immaterial numbers exist in the minds of Mathematicians.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm The product of quantification is a map or a representation of the quantity that you are trying to perceive.

Shame. Are you struggling with the fact that quantities are a byproduct of perception?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm An example would be the word "eight" or the numerical symbol "8". Quantification isn't the act of changing the quantity of something.

Shame... can you quantify the number of words in the above sentence? The number of letters?
Is such discretization even possible without minds?

You don't seem to know anything about mereology.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm You're hopeless . . . you're destined to confuse quantities with concepts of quantities for the rest of your life. Keep making the same mistakes as the Anglo-Saxon and German philosophers of the past that you very clearly worship so much.

You are so confused you keep mixing up quantities; for their nature. Quantities are concepts.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:12 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 5:33 pm When you remove the quantifiers (humans) you don't get to keep the quantities.

A claim as idiotic as, "When you remove the perceivers, you don't get to keep the perceived."

What a fucking idiot. Doesn't even understand which way the arrow of time works; so he mixes up the inputs and outputs of cognitive processes.

Perceiving the perceived produces perceptions.
Quantifying the perceived produces quantities.

If humans don't exist, why would you even insist that things exist at the level of abstraction of "planets"?
Why is your world-view so anthropocentric even after removing humans from the equation?!?
Why not default to mereological nihilism - the view that composite objects don't truly exist?
There are no planets, or molecules; or atoms; or quarks/protons; or quantum fields.

There is just matter and energy distributed in various arrangements throughout spacetime.
It cannot be discretized into parts. There are no parts to be counted - so there are no quantities to be perceived.

How do you even quantity an unquantifiable set?
How many waters are in the ocean?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am So how do you get quantities without quantifiers quantifying?

How do you get anything without perceivers perceiving?

You're the master of asking stupid questions.

To quantify is to perceive quantity. You can't have perceptions of quantities without perceivers. But quantities can exist just fine without perceivers.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am That's laughably bad reasoning.

That's a laughable projection.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Tell me more about determining/perceiving zero planets.

We do it all the time. How many unicorns are there in the universe? Zero. You know it. Everyone knows it. But you have to argue otherwise in order to save your face.

And no, the idea of a unicorn in your head is not a unicorn. So your idiotic claim that unicorns exist because the ideas of unicorns exist is just that -- an idiotic claim.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Shame. Are you struggling with the fact that quantities are a byproduct of perception?

Shame. Are you struggling with the fact that quantities are NOT a byproduct of perception?

Surely, the number of planets in the Solar System is not a byproduct of someone's perception.

No person's perception has the power to create planets ( and adjust their number. )

And even if it does, the number of planets existed long before someone employed perception to alter that number.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Shame... can you quantify the number of words in the above sentence? The number of letters?
Is such discretization even possible without minds?

Shame... can you stop asking stupid questions?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am You don't seem to know anything about mereology.

And you literally don't know anyhing.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am You are so confused you keep mixing up quantities; for their nature. Quantities are concepts.

You are so confused you keep confusing quantities with concepts.

Quantities are NOT concepts.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Perceiving the perceived produces perceptions.
Quantifying the perceived produces quantities.

Quantification does not produce quantities. It merely measures, determines or perceives the quantity of something. As such, it produces PERCEPTIONS of quantities.

Look it up, cretin.

Google:
express or measure the quantity of

Cambridge Dictionary:
to measure or judge the amount or number of something

Dictionary.com:
to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of

If it were true that quantification produces quantities, then that would mean that quantification alters the number of things in the world.

But when you're quantifying your height, you retard, you're not altering your height, you're merely measuring, determining, perceiving the number of centimenters that can fit inside it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am If humans don't exist, why would you even insist that things exist at the level of abstraction of "planets"?
Why is your world-view so anthropocentric even after removing humans from the equation?!?
Why not default to mereological nihilism - the view that composite objects don't truly exist?
There are no planets, or molecules; or atoms; or quarks/protons; or quantum fields.

You're making the same exact same mistakes that Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer and others made in the past. Locke was a 17th century philosophy, so one can excuse him for being wrong. But it's been more than 300 years since then and you still can't correct his mistakes.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am How do you get anything without perceivers perceiving?

You don't. Getting is what getters do.

No getters - all's there for the getting; and nobody's there to get it.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am You're the master of asking stupid questions.

And you are the master of giving stupid answers.

Who's doing any questioning when you remove humans from the equation?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am To quantify is to perceive quantity. You can't have perceptions of quantities without perceivers. But quantities can exist just fine without perceivers.

That's a declaration of faith; not a declaration of knowledge.

Who would make such a declaration when we remove humans from the equation?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am We do it all the time. How many unicorns are there in the universe? Zero.

You should stop confusing your tiny mind for the whole universe...
There's at least three unicorns in my house alone. My daughter loves unicorns.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am You know it. Everyone knows it. But you have to argue otherwise in order to save your face.

And you should stop projecting your ignorance...

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am And no, the idea of a unicorn in your head is not a unicorn.

Ok... what is a unicorn then? Please tell me about your identification procedure between unicorns and non-unicorns.

Then please tell us when you performed an exhaustive search of the WHOLE UNIVERSE.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am Surely, the number of planets in the Solar System is not a byproduct of someone's perception.

Your cognitive dysfunction is obvious....

50 years ago the number of planets was 9.
It's 8 now.

Explain how this is possible.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am Shame... can you stop asking stupid questions?

What a stupid question!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am And you literally don't know anyhing.

I know! And even then I still have more knowledge than you.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am You are so confused you keep confusing quantities with concepts.

Quantities are NOT concepts.

Ok... where is a quantity located then? Show me one.

The planets are in the Solar System.
Where's their number?
Which is their number? 8 or 9?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am Quantification does not produce quantities. It merely measures, determines or perceives the quantity of something. As such, it produces PERCEPTIONS of quantities.

So do you perceive 8 or 9 planets in the Solar System?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am Look it up, cretin.

OK.... look it up, cretin.

Look up the quantity of planets in the Solar System. Is it 8 or 9?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:08 am But it's been more than 300 years since then and you still can't correct his mistakes.

OK... so what's the non-mistaken number of planets?

Who was counting wrong? The astronomers prior to 2006; or the astronomers after 2006?

Quantities are contingent upon human conceptual frameworks!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am There is just matter and energy distributed in various arrangements throughout spacetime.
It cannot be discretized into parts. There are no parts to be counted - so there are no quantities to be perceived.

You have a severe disregard for language and logic, so it's perfectly natural that you would say such nonsensical things as the above.

If the universe is one big indivisible whole, it means it's made out of exactly 1 part. That shows that your claim that there are no quntities to be perceived in such a universe is false. But you also fail to realize that, within such a universe, there cannot be 8 billion people because that requires at least 8 billion parts. Yet, here were are, Magnus and Skepdick, two different poeple.

You mistify. To mistify is to use meaningless and self-contradictory statements to describe the universe.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:24 am 50 years ago the number of planets was 9.
It's 8 now.

Explain how this is possible.

50 years ago the word "planet" meant something else.

Both claims are true.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Ok... where is a quantity located then? Show me one.

The planets are in the Solar System.
Where's their number?
Which is their number? 8 or 9?

Try constructing an argument instead of asking dumb questions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Look up the quantity of planets in the Solar System. Is it 8 or 9?

You can't help yourself.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:20 am Who was counting wrong? The astronomers prior to 2006; or the astronomers after 2006?

They weren't counting wrong, dummy. They were simply counting different things.

Let me give you an example.

Imagine a house. And within that house, a wife, a husband and their son.

How many men are there?

If by "men" we mean "a male human being", then there are 2 of them.

If by "men" we mean "a human being", then there are 3 of them.

Why are you asking these idiotic questions, dummy?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:25 am You have a severe disregard for language and logic, so it's perfectly natural that you would say such nonsensical things as the above.

I don't have disregard for it. I am simply going along with your thought experiment.

There is no language/logic once you remove humans from the equation!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:25 am If the universe is one big indivisible whole, it means it's made out of exactly 1 part.

Yeah, that's the idiocy of set theory creeping in. An infinite set is a set that is a proper subset of itself.

"1 part" is an oxymoron. You are confusing the whole for a part.

Reality is neither whole nor part without somebody to view it holistically or reductively.
Reality is neither quantifiable nor non-quantifiable. For that too is a distinction performed by a quantifier e.g me!

Reality is itself! That's how identity works!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:25 am That shows that your claim that there are no quntities to be perceived in such a universe is false.

It's false that it's false.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:25 am But you also fail to realize that, within such a universe, there cannot be 8 billion people because that requires at least 8 billion parts. Yet, here were are, Magnus and Skepdick, two different poeple.

Q.E.D!!!

You need at least one quantifier (human) to establish ANY quantity! Even the quantity of quantifiers!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:25 am You mistify. To mistify is to use meaningless and self-contradictory statements to describe the universe.

There's no such thing as self-contradiction. There isn't even such a thing as contradiction!

The statement "I don't exist" literally proves my fucking existence!
The statement "I both exist and don't exist" also proves my fucking existence!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:36 am They weren't counting wrong, dummy. They were simply counting different things.

They are counting the exact same things, idiot!

Namely, they were counting Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

How many planets are in there amongst Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto?

Is it 8; or 9?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:36 am Let me give you an example.

Imagine a house. And within that house, a wife, a husband and their son.

How many men are there?

If by "men" we mean "a male human being", then there are 2 of them.

If by "men" we mean "a human being", then there are 3 of them.

Why are you asking these idiotic questions, dummy?

So what is a "planet" without any humans around to define it; moron?

Without humans to define "planet" Is Pluto a planet; or isn't it?
Without humans to define "planet" Is Earth a planet; or isn't it?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:11 pm Correct. It sould be obvious. If you remove all minds from the universe, the number of planets in the Solar System would still be 8.

It's only "obvious" to fucking idiots. That's why it's obvious to you.

If you remove all minds from the universe who defines what counts as "planet" and what doesn't?

Why is Earth counted as a planet?
Why isn't Pluto counted as a planet?

The "number of planets" is directly determined by the human classification schema.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:11 pm Just because there is noone to perceive that fact doesn't change that fact.

If there's nobody to impose an identification schema there is no difference between a planet and a non-planet!

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:11 pm But you're a vain over-thinking tryhard pseudo-intellectual with a deeply ingrained belief in materialism and direct realism.

Again, you're confusing quantities with concepts of quantities. You do that all the time. You can't help it.

That's hilarious!

Remind me... who is claiming direct access to an objective, mind-independent reality where "the number of planets" exists independently of humans and awaits discovery?

What is it that changed (independently of humans) circa 2006 to reduce the number from 9 to 8? How did a whole fucking planet magically vanish from the Solar System?!?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 12:03 pm If you remove all minds from the universe who defines what counts as "planet" and what doesn't?

What an extremely retarded solipsist you are.

If it was Tom who asked, "If we remove all minds from existence, what will be the number of planets in the Solar System?", then it is what Tom meant by the word "planet" at the time of asking the question that matters.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 12:03 pm What is it that changed (independently of humans) circa 2006 to reduce the number from 9 to 8? How did a whole fucking planet magically vanish from the Solar System?!?

They changed what they are talking about, clown.

They changed the quantity that they are measuring.

You're a retard.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 12:03 pm Remind me... who is claiming direct access to an objective, mind-independent reality where "the number of planets" exists independently of humans and awaits discovery?

You are hallucinating. I never claimed "direct access". I merely claimed that quantities are mind-independent.

You're trying too hard, dummy. And you're failing EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's embarrassing to watch.