Let all abstract numbers be defined exactly as concrete numbers.
Concrete number: A numerical quantity with a corresponding unit.
Let the corresponding unit exist as an abstract dimension notated with the use of (_).
Let the length and width of all dimensional units remain abstract and undeclared.
Let the dimensional unit be equal in quantity to the numerical quantity it corresponds to.
Let all numerical quantities inhabit their corresponding abstract dimensional units.
Let zero be assigned a single dimensional unit.
So here is one possible point of disagreement. You say "in all cases I have 0 of the thing given", and I say "that's logically equivalent to saying you have nothing, in all cases, no need to profliferate the types of nothing". I guess now you refer me to point 2a). 2a) looks problematic for all sorts of reasons, Meinongians on the forum might have something to say about it, but in any case, were I to claim that "0" just signifies the absence of anything, then it doesn't look like I'm committed to saying that there is such a thing as 0, and certainly not that there are lots of different types of it. My semantics for "0" would not need to include a strange nothingness (or strange nothingnesses). It might need to include the empty set, but the thing about the empty set is that, on any axiomatic set theory that includes an empty set, it is unique.In all cases I have 0 of the thing given.
And perhaps another disagreement. There might be possible unicorns, there might be fictional unicorns but a possible or fictional unicorn is not straightforwardly the same thing as an abstract unicorn.There is an abstract unicorn...
Suppose there is varying amounts of "nothing".
"It" does not exist in this reality....therefore...
zero can not represent "it".....
FACT 1: There is not a "nothing" in this reality
FACT 2: Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"
I may have two cups before me, both empty...but of varying size. Therefore varying amounts of zero. — Conway
If I had said...
"is nothing"
therefore
"is zero"
yes then it would have been a non sequitur.... — Conway
Sometimes, but not in this instance. Here I was arguing to try to get clear on exactly what your philosophical proposal is. However, when you respond to my arguments with nothing but non-sequiturs, I have no choice but to conclude that you really do not have anything philosophically interesting to say. So, farewell, I wish you better luck astonishing the world with your mathematical prowess than you have been able to do so with your philosophical abilities. You can always take solace in the maxim that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country.You argue just to argue. — Conway
I wish you better luck astonishing the world with your mathematical prowess than you have been able to do so with your philosophical abilities. You can always take solace in the maxim that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country. — MetaphysicsNow
I wouldn't bother playing around with Conway — MetaphysicsNow
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.