The Philosophy Now Forum

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 9:24 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:15 pm
Shades of red are not mathematical operators.
Anyway, now that you acknowledge your mistake,...

Hmmm...so you think I "acknowledged" what you call "my mistake"...

Please show me how you think I did this.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 10:38 amBy asking "what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?"
...you acknowledge that I do think there is at least one reason we cannot do sums in redness.

Well, I said there was.

However, if you don't believe it, you've only made that obvious NOW. It doesn't at all mean that's what you thought when you wrote of my comment about sums in redness,

"it doesn't even strike me as true."

That would certainly seem to indicate that at that time, at least, you DID think it was possible. That is, unless you dangled an ambiguous "it," which is possible. In which case, you were more unclear than perhaps disingenuous. However, both would be your issue, not mine.

Clarify now, if you want.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 10:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:23 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:15 pm
Shades of red are not mathematical operators.

Right. I said that.

No you didn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:23 pmMoreover, maths deals with quantities. "Redness" is a quality. You can substitute any symbol for a quantity (so long as you stipulate it); but you can't substitute a quality for a symbol.

So it makes me wonder why you tried to do it...

I didn't.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:42 am
CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:19 pm...if you don't believe it, you've only made that obvious NOW. It doesn't at all mean that's what you thought when you wrote of my comment about sums in redness,

"it doesn't even strike me as true."

That would certainly seem to indicate that at that time, at least, you DID think it was possible. That is, unless you dangled an ambiguous "it," which is possible. In which case, you were more unclear than perhaps disingenuous. However, both would be your issue, not mine.

Clarify now, if you want.

I have done so already:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:40 amYou 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:25 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 10:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:23 pm
Right. I said that.

No you didn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 8:23 pmMoreover, maths deals with quantities. "Redness" is a quality. You can substitute any symbol for a quantity (so long as you stipulate it); but you can't substitute a quality for a symbol.

So it makes me wonder why you tried to do it...

I didn't.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:42 am
CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.

That is substituting symbols for quantities. At no point have I tried to "substitute a quality for a symbol."

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:46 pm That is substituting symbols for quantities. At no point have I tried to "substitute a quality for a symbol."

Well, isn't this all tiresome?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:51 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:46 pm That is substituting symbols for quantities. At no point have I tried to "substitute a quality for a symbol."

Well, isn't this all tiresome?

It is easy to stop, Mr Can; just grow up and accept responsibility for your own mistakes.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 9:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:51 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:46 pm That is substituting symbols for quantities. At no point have I tried to "substitute a quality for a symbol."

Well, isn't this all tiresome?

It is easy to stop, Mr Can; just grow up and accept responsibility for your own mistakes.

My 'mistake' seems to have been bothering to address you on this topic. I'm happy to remedy that now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 1:55 pm My 'mistake' seems to have been bothering to address you on this topic.

Well, that may be your subjective experience, but the objective fact is that you made a logical mistake, and mistakenly called someone dishonest as a result.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 1:55 pml'm happy to remedy that now.

Well, stranger things have happened, but it would be out of character for you to let someone else have the last word. I'm confident you wouldn't countenance withdrawal if you had any residual belief that it is me who is wrong.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 8:20 pm I'm confident you wouldn't countenance withdrawal if you had any residual belief that it is me who is wrong.

See? You get to be wrong again. Well done.

Manny comes back to say Will’s wrong to predict he would come back. lol

Like I said:

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2026 7:38 pm It seems Manny doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 8:35 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 8:20 pm I'm confident you wouldn't countenance withdrawal if you had any residual belief that it is me who is wrong.

See? You get to be wrong again. Well done.

I'm just messing with you Mr Can, knowing full well you'd fall for it. There is no point trying to be serious if you can't accept that you made a mistake and I am not dishonest. I pity you your insecurities, but they're not my problem. Mr Can, the last word is yours, it is my gift to you.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 10:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 8:35 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 8:20 pm I'm confident you wouldn't countenance withdrawal if you had any residual belief that it is me who is wrong.

See? You get to be wrong again. Well done.

I'm just messing with you Mr Can, knowing full well you'd fall for it. There is no point trying to be serious if you can't accept that you made a mistake and I am not dishonest. I pity you your insecurities, but they're not my problem. Mr Can, the last word is yours, it is my gift to you.

Funny, I can almost see you pronouncing "Mr. Can" as "Mr Con".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 2:52 pmFunny, I can almost see you pronouncing "Mr. Can" as "Mr Con".

English English pronunciation can be confusing, even for the English. Few people guess that Featherstonehaugh is pronounced Fanshaw, or that Worcestershire Sauce is just Wooster Sauce; but as well as contracting, we have a habit of including syllables that are not immediately apparent. The surprising pronunciation of Can, as in Mr Can, in the international phonetic alphabet is ˈjuːsləs twæt.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 3:36 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 2:52 pmFunny, I can almost see you pronouncing "Mr. Can" as "Mr Con".

English English pronunciation can be confusing, even for the English. Few people guess that Featherstonehaugh is pronounced Fanshaw, or that Worcestershire Sauce is just Wooster Sauce; but as well as contracting, we have a habit of including syllables that are not immediately apparent. The surprising pronunciation of Can, as in Mr Can, in the international phonetic alphabet is ˈjuːsləs twæt.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:08 pm The mistake you made was to conclude that I don't think there is any reason we cannot do sums in redness. By asking "what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?" you acknowledge that I do think there is at least one reason we cannot do sums in redness.

LOL, let's leave the Chinese philosophers out of this (don't worry if you don't get it, but if you want a hint, about fish having feelings)

But I'm really jumping in here about the "math is about QUANTITY" (never quality) NOPE -- there are areas of mathematics where quantity not involved at all, and what is being discussed are qualities. << not qualities like color, but think about qualities like "prime" or "open" or "can tile a plane", etc. >>