In the first line below, I make a claim.

Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things. — ucarr

In the second line, without realizing it, you affirm the claim I make in the first line.

Could that something that makes them countable be their presence? — Sir2u

In the third line, I make the observation that your statement is an affirmation of my claim.

Here's where things get interesting because what you have written above is a full, unconditional affirmation of what I've been claiming from the start. — ucarr

In the fourth line below, you accuse me of moving the goal posts.

Could you just go back to the OP and point out exactly where you stated that... — Sir2u

In lines 5, 6, 7 I quote myself from the OP. Any reader can clearly see that my later statement, Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things. was made earlier, with slightly different wording, in the OP. To elaborate a bit further, when, in the OP, I talk about a material object's ability to hold a position as being essential to its physical attribute called number, I'm using different words to talk about the very thing, PRESENCE, which you affirm as the thing that makes material things countable.

Material Numbers – because a material object can hold a position, perhaps we can understand that any material object has a built-in property of number. — ucarr

This property of number of a material object, like its mass, is therefore understood to be one of its physical attributes. — ucarr

The number of a material object is then a kind of measure of the built-in positionality of a material object. — ucarr

There's no wiggle room here.

In my previous post, wherein I show, through your own statements, your belief in my central claim, the logic is sound.

In this post, I show, through my own statements, the fact I've never deviated from my OP.

The evidence supporting these two claims is here before the reader in black & white. Any reasonable person can evaluate the carefully worded statements and make their decision where the truth lies.

Objects are countable and finite. 1 object, 2 objects, 3 objects, 4 objects, 5 objects, 7 objects, ... ad inf. Or the other way round: 1 object, 1/2 object, 1/2 object, 1/3 object, 1/4 object, 1/5 object, 1/6 object, 1/7 object, ... ad 0. And then there are all numbers in between.

Together they form an infinite continuum to move in. Space is the only real infinity.

An invention, in my view, is essentially imagination based. Ergo, what's invented needn't correspond to reality (unicorns, leprechauns, fairies don't exist). — Agent Smith

Most, if not all languages spoken on earth were invented or came from someone's imagination. So you think that languages need not correspond to reality then? That they would not correlate to anything physical?

This has to mean something; it can't be ignored, oui?

There's no wiggle room here. — ucarr

Only your word for that, and I am a non believer. The key to your concept is the "built in" bit. But nothing can be proven to contain any mathematical information. If you can show any definitive proof of this claim, please do so. But stating that it is true does not make it so.

If a stone contains that information about itself, which of the stones in a quarry contains the data about the pile? None of them.
As I said already, you are repeating yourself. Please stop.

Most, if not all languages spoken on earth were invented or came from someone's imagination. So you think that languages need not correspond to reality then? That they would not correlate to anything physical?

This has to mean something; it can't be ignored, oui? — Sir2u

Languages are used to describe something i.e. they aren't invented in a vacuum. There are two aspects of this whole description process:

1. Things/objects: In this we're at full liberty, naming can be done in whichever way we fancy e.g. water could've been assigned to the word "dex" or ",loi" etc. Naming needn't possess a rationale.

2. Patterns: We have no choice in this regard. If what goes up must come down or if rolling stones gather no moss, then that's how we have to say it is (assuming we're concerned about truth). These patterns are not invented by us, they're out there, independent of us. The universe exhibits mathematical patterns and these weren't imposed on the universe by us with the aid of language.

As you wish. I will stop. Excelsior.

:up:

In the first line below, I make a claim.

Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things.
— ucarr — ucarr

The counting process is a brain process. And not just an abstract process. To count to ten takes me five seconds and counting to 100 would take 50 seconds and 1000 would take 500 seconds. Since all this counting is taking place in a brain, why not identify the brain as the source of Material Numbers?

So it seems the choice is do material numbers reside in matter or in brains? If a brain was absent then counting wouldn't even be possible.

If a brain was absent then counting wouldn't even be possible. — Mark Nyquist

I remember the first time I saw a number raised to a negative power. "How does that work?" I wondered. "Take the square root of a negative number? But you said..." Who thought up imaginary numbers? "Say, they look like real numbers."

Patterns: We have no choice in this regard. If what goes up must come down — Agent Smith

Right, gravity exists without human intervention. Even without humans coming up with the idea of describe it by using numbers it would still hold us on the ground, but there would be no description of it. Math is in the human mind.

These patterns are not invented by us, they're out there, independent of us. The universe exhibits mathematical patterns and these weren't imposed on the universe by us with the aid of language. — Agent Smith

As I have said, everything has properties.

OK, so Banno's red cup actually has red as part of it's being. Or does it just have a property we call red?

If a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality? — ucarr

Does 'reality' have an exact, context-independent meaning? Is such a situation even possible? (And what exactly do I mean by 'possible'?)

If a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality?
— ucarr

Does 'reality' have an exact, context-independent meaning? Is such a situation even possible? (And what exactly do I mean by 'possible'?) — lll

I proceed with the assumption you read the premise of my quoted line as being,

Reality has an exact, context-independent meaning.

Isn't the premise you ascribe to me a pretty good definition of Platonic Idealism?

Anyone who uses possible assumes an existence-accommodating context of some sort.

As for the degree of generality of an existence-accommodating context, I'm presently of the opinion that metaphysicians want to push that degree of generality towards infinity. So, yes. The metaphysician believes reality has an exact, context-independent meaning.

Doesn't the utilitarianism (and thus locality) folded into my quote protect it against Platonic Idealism?

Anyone who uses possible assumes an existence-accommodating context of some sort. — ucarr

Possibly. (I see what you are getting at, but I've learned (with difficulty) to be wary of dragging in foggy grammatical habit as ethereally hyper-logical necessity.)

Doesn't the utilitarianism (and thus locality) folded into my quote protect it against Platonic Idealism? — ucarr

You seem to have one foot on the station and the other on the train. If 'reality' has only the foggiest referent (or more plausibly a dizzying infinity of unique context-dependent referents), the game loses its charm. 'No matter, never mind.'

Pure math, and all other forms of signification, once uncoupled from empirical experience, become unintelligible.

Numbers, uncoupled from interrelated material objects, become random, unable to signify anything intelligible.

Abstract thought is non-specific WRT our material world; it is not uncoupled from our material world. — ucarr

I think the bolded statement is correct and important.

The first statement might admit some exceptions, but one must allow for the ineluctable ambiguity of the smoke signals we are trading here. (You mentioned 'Wet-gloom-shine' in the OP. I think he generalized his discovery about math to 'lung wrench' in general. But 'every talk has its stay.') — ucarr

Logic is continuity, which is to say, interrelationship, rooted in inference. Would anyone have any notion of continuity & interrelationship between material things without firsthand experience of a spacially-extended, material world that affords empirical experience?

Pure math, and all other forms of signification, once uncoupled from empirical experience, become unintelligible.

Numbers, uncoupled from interrelated material objects, become random, unable to signify anything intelligible.

Abstract thought is non-specific WRT our material world; it is not uncoupled from our material world. — ucarr

Statement one above is my general statement creating context for the following three statements.

Statements two & three are a response to a debater's extreme position that numbers exist only within the human mind, without material presence within our material world.

Statement four is my acknowledgment of the connection between the abstract thought of the human mind & our material world.

Abstract thought is non-specific WRT our material world; it is not uncoupled from our material world.
— ucarr

I think the bolded statement is correct and important.

The first statement might admit some exceptions, but one must allow for the ineluctable ambiguity of the smoke signals we are trading here. (You mentioned 'Wet-gloom-shine' in the OP. I think he generalized his discovery about math to 'lung wrench' in general. But 'every talk has its stay.')
— ucarr

The above commentary upon the "abstract thought" statement is attributed to me, but I don't recognize the words as being mine. III, are they your words?

Also,

(You mentioned 'Wet-gloom-shine' in the OP. I think he generalized his discovery about math to 'lung wrench' in general. But 'every talk has its stay.') — ucarr

The above commentary re: 'Wet-gloom-shine' etc is not mine & does not appear in my OP.

You mentioned 'Wet-gloom-shine' in the OP. — ucarr

:lol: :rofl: