So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc.

No, I don't agree.

The the number of states my lamp can be in is 2 - on or off. There is no counting past the number 2 when counting the number of states my lamp can be in. You can never attain more than 2 possible states for my lamp. So 2 is infinityish? — TonesInDeepFreeze

In some sense 2 is infinityish.

You seem to be an expert on math so what I'm gonna say is going to sound familiar. There's the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon whose mathematics is limited to 1 and 2, anything greater is many which, to me, is $\infty$.

So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

We would have to restrict oursleves to specific units of measurement.

I am most definitely not an expert on mathematics.

We would have to restrict oursleves to specific units of measurement. — Agent Smith

You're claiming that there is a greatest number. It's not 186000. And there's no law of thought that says I can't use different units of measurement. And there's no law of thought that says I can't add 1 to whatever number you claim is the greatest number.

Your view is dogmatic.

Let's play a little, simple game. For money, $5 a turn. Who can name the higher number (finite positive integer).

You go first in each turn.

Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful. At all. It is just that this thread put me in a giddy mood.

(Reminds me of a scene in an animated TV show. Two robots sit down to a chess set, set up on the board. They both think very hard, for a long time. Finally, one says, without either of them having moved a piece, "White checkmates black in 325 moves." The guy who plays black, pipes up, "Awww... you always win!")

Yes, the game is a funny way of making this point.

/

Yes, chess is determined. Either there is a winning strategy for white, or winning strategy for black, or a strategy for both to draw. von Neumann made that observation. But we don't know which it is.

I also proved it for myself before I heard that von Neumann already had. It's kinda trivial really. Induction on the number of moves, if I recall.

Your position is dogmatic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Automatic, dogmatic, same difference.

Another whiff from the past. It was a button in the era when people wore large buttons on their shirts, attached by a pin in the back of the button. This one showed a car speeding away from the carcass of a dog, with tire marks across him. The inscription said, "My Karma just ran over your Dogma."

automatic is to dogmatic as karma is to dogma. Cute.

Your game only proves my point. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Granted.

I changed my reply. I didn't notice that it was you who posted and not the other poster. Then I realized that you were making the same point as I was.

You're claiming that there is a greatest number. It's not 186000. And there's no law of thought that says I can't use different units of measurement. And there's no law of thought that says I can't add 1 to whatever number you claim is the greatest number.

Your view is dogmatic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Well, I'm not in any way trying to say my way or the highway. Anyway, nice talking to you.

I'm not in any way trying to say my way or the highway. — Agent Smith

No, you're not. But you hold to your position even though it can't withstand easy objections.

I have to admit, you are a really nice person, A. Smith.

(I know that irrelevant flaming is reason enough to delete posts. Irrelevant to the topic. But are irrelevant compliments also sufficient reason for deletion?)

I changed my reply. I didn't notice that it was you who posted and not the other poster. Then I realized that you were making the same point as I was. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Duly noted.

I don't know what kind of person he is away from posting, but I find him to be flippantly dismissive in my interactions with him as a poster.

I take it that you don't take it that the only objects are abstractions, because you went on to say why you don't take it that the only objects are abstractions. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Right, but as I said, I was willing to restrict my definition of "objects", to mean abstractions exclusively, for the purpose of proceeding with this conversation if that's what you desire.

There is a problem with using ambiguous terms in deductive logic. It leads to equivocation. So I wanted to make sure that this problem was avoided.

Or, are you now saying that the only objects are abstractions? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I told you, I can go either way, you seem to be having great difficulty with that idea. So long as we adhere to one definition or the other, I'm ready to proceed. But equivocation is a waste of time. My inclination, through my habit of common use, and therefore preference, is to say that abstractions are not objects, and define "object" in a way which is consistent with the law of identity, as I explained. But an abstraction, as an "object" is not consistent with the law of identity, because what we call "the same" concept exists in many different minds, with accidental differences. So if we proceed by defining "object" so that abstractions are objects, we must forfeit the use of the law of identity as a defining feature of an object.

You seem to be having difficulty with this proposal. Could you explain the problem you are having?

Yes, I knew you would reply by shifting back around again from your own words but pretending that you haven't. This will go on indefinitely with you, as you play a silly game that is the forum equivalent to a child's peek a boo. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, so long as we reach no agreement as to how to define "object" to ensure that neither of us will equivocate in our arguments, this situation could go on indefinitely without any progress.

this situation could go on indefinitely without any progress — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, your obfuscation seems to be inexhaustible.

So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Oh, a new angle... AS did not argue that there is a greatest number... he argued that there is a greatest number we'd ever need.

That is also deterministic. The number itself is beyond our capacity to find out, but I daresay if we find a way to define "we", then yes, AS is right on.

Please note: AS means the greatest number we'd ever NEED, and not the greatest number we'd ever be able to THINK OF.

No, you're not. But you hold to your position even though it can't withstand easy objections. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Apolgies, I'm lazy, plus I lack the wherewithal. I hope you understand.

Since our (the people who form "we" in the argument or claim by AS) existence on the timeline of our individual beings or of the species is supposedly finite, it necessarily follows that there will be or has been a number that is the greatest, and which we have needed or will need.

AS did not argue that there is a greatest number... he argued that there is a greatest number we'd ever need. — god must be atheist

I am going by these:

it hasta be relatable in re my apperceptive mass, my experiences. — Agent Smith

there's got to be a finite number such that it's, for all practical purposes, ∞ to us. — Agent Smith

Probably those are not exact enough to say whether he means "there is a greatest number" or "there is a greatest number that will ever be needed". He can say for himself. But I would be very interested if he said "No, there is no greatest number. But there is a greatest number we'll ever need." If he said that, then it would be hard for me to dispute him, since I have no idea whether there is a greatest number that anyone (and let's include any conscious being in the universe now or ever) would ever need.

But still, again, as far as mathematics is concerned, there is no compelling reason that mathematics should limit to only numbers that are not greater than the one we guess to be the greatest ever needed for practical question. When I have a hankering to add one to that number, what's going to happen? The universe will tell me I can't do that?

I simply went by the thread title.

Good point.

But I still would be interested to know whether he does recognize that there is no greatest number. If he does, then I would need to retract some of my previous comments about this.

since I have no idea whether there is a greatest number that anyone (and let's include any conscious being in the universe now or ever) would ever need. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I think it follows. Everyone needs numbers. One of the numbers one needs in a lifetime is the greatest number. This applies to everyone.

One of the complete lot of people will have a number that he or she needs that is greater or equal number compared to the numbers needed by everyone else in the lot. That is the greatest number we'd ever need.

Although it may not be a positive integer, a rational, an irrational, or even a real number.

This can be further analyzed. We, not a person individually. So the greatest number we'd ever need, is the greatest number which at least two people will ever need. And therefore it may not be necessarily the greatest number ever needed by a human being, because one or more individuals may have other, non-equal-to-each-other numbers, that are greater than the greatest number at least two people will need.

existence on the timeline of our individual beings or of the species is supposedly finite — god must be atheist

I don't know whether there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings.

I don't know whether there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings. — TonesInDeepFreeze

True. But we are talking "we". Supposedly humans. That's what I'm sticking with. Computers are not humans. Salient, conscious beings, wherever they are and however they are made, that are smart like humans or smarter, but are not humans are also not part of "we".

Yes, your obfuscation seems to be inexhaustible. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, but your refusal to define and adhere to a definition of "object" is inexcusable. It can mean nothing other than that you rely on the game of equivocation as your mode of persuasion.

So which should we take to be the highest number we allow?

Mathematics should be limited to only the numbers you will personally allow? — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is relevant to our discussion of how to define "object". Let's assume that mathematicians might define "object" in any way that one likes. This means that there is no necessary consistency between one mathematician's "object" and another's. Therefore, we could have contradiction, incompatibility, and incommensurability between one mathematicians idea of "object", and another's.

Now suppose that we agree that there is an advantage to providing consistency in what qualifies as an object, such that measuring quantity could proceed in a standard way, by some agreed upon convention. Do you not agree that this would be advantageous? And do you not agree also that we need a definition of "object", and we need to adhere to that definition, to ensure that inconsistency between one mathematician and another, in the measuring of quantity is avoided?

One of the numbers one needs in a lifetime is the greatest number. — god must be atheist

Of course that is a plausible idea. But I don't know that there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings.

Do you not agree that this would be advantageous? — Metaphysician Undercover

I actually can't see the UNIVERSAL advantage of unifying objects and terms of measurement. Sailors still measure velocity in knots; Americans still measure weight and volume in ounces and gallons and pounds. If there were an advantage to unification, everyone would be using the same system, and yet we don't.