Truth is Relative

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

I understand that a male gold finch sitting on the fence will look different depending on what eyes he is being viewed through

---

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the subjective experience of color. I'm talking about the actual wavelength of light that is being received. It is not constant but is relative to the observers motion relative to the object being viewed.There's a joke of a physicist who was contesting a ticket he had received for running a red light. He said that since color is relative based upon motion and since he was approaching the light, it's wavelength would have been compressed, shifting it toward the violet end of the spectrum and thus, he perceived it as green.The judge agreed and changed the violation to speeding since in order to shift the color sufficiently from red to green, he'd have to be moving near the speed of light.That's the point I'm making: Not even color is absolute since color is a function of wavelength and wavelength is relative.

quote:

---

As far as I know, numbers do not exist in nature.

---

I asked you a simple question. It would be nice if you answered it. Why is it that nobody ever answers my direct questions?Are you saying that one object is not "one"?

quote:

---

How each species relates that there is a gold finch and cardinal sitting on the fence is relative to the species, but the birds are not a two.

---

Why not? There's "two" of them. Do not confuse linguistics with mathematics.I know about the Piraha and they've been giving the Chomsky-ans fits since they don't have recursion which Chomsky says is inherent in all lanaguage. But I notice that you seem to have overlooked your own source:The Piraha don't have color terms, either. If you're going to say that there is no such thing as number because there is a language that doesn't use number, then you're going to have to say that there is no such thing as color, either, for the exact same reason.Color can be objectively defined. While the boundaries may be arbitrary, they are objective. Number is the same thing. Physically, a single object behaves one way. If you add a second object, they behave differently. Add a third, and things change yet again (and, in fact, become so difficult that we cannot solve the problem directly).What has changed? Number. It is because there is another, distinct and separate object involved and it is because the [I][B]TWO[/i][/b] of them are interacting.Edited by Rrhain, : Fixed a grammar and formatting error.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

2 cups of water, and 2 cups of instant pancake mix, gives you one bowl of ready to cook pancakes. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Strictly, he said 'of the same something', so you need:two piles of sand, add two more piles of sand and end up with one pile of sand.

No. It's only our view of that truth that is relative, and subjective.The triangle is not "green". In certain light it will reflect a wavelength that can be classified when viewed through a spectrometer, to be green.It's all about the light in which we view things. I was just pondering this the other day.

I stand corrected.

quote:

---

That's the point I'm making: Not even color is absolute since color is a function of wavelength and wavelength is relative.

---

I was addressing whether color exists in nature. Message 12I feel that what we call color does exist in nature, because the pigment (or equivalent) exists no matter how we perceive it. It also doesn't matter whether we have a name for the "color" or not. The gold finch still has the same pigment in its feathers whether we call it yellow, bird, or just point at it. I agree that what we say about color is relative, but when it comes to existing in nature I don't see that the statement concerning rational numbers is an example of absolute truth. Now after Parasomnium's explanation in Message 23, I understand his point; but I don't feel that it applies to nature which is where I was coming from.As I said, a gold finch and a cardinal on a fence is not a two. They are birds. That was the answer to your question. I just used two instead of one.Yes, a herd of cows behaves differently than a single cow, but they aren't numbers. They are cows.I can't point to a rational number in nature. That was my point concerning nature and Parasomnium's example of an absolute truth.

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

two piles of sand, add two more piles of sand and end up with one pile of sand.

---

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? If you're going to insiste upon "one pile of sand," then you didn't have "two piles of sand" to begin with.Of course, we're being disingenuous with the concepts here. "Pile of sand" is not well-defined. There's a joke about an engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician on a train. The engineer looks out the window and says, "Look! There's a goat in the field!" The physicist looks and says, "Yes, there is a white goat in the field!" The mathematician looks and says, "Yes, there is a goat in the field and the side that is facing us is white."The reason why you can have "two piles of sand" and end up with "one pile of sand" is because we are being lax over the definition of a "pile of sand."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

but when it comes to existing in nature I don't see that the statement concerning rational numbers is an example of absolute truth.

---

Again, I ask you flat out:Are you saying that if we have one object, we don't have "one"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Are you saying that if we have one object, we don't have "one"?

---

Correct(Message 29, Message 36)

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that if we have one object, we don't have "one"?

---

​

Correct

---

Then what do we have? Two?Tell that to the guy at the checkout stand when the bill comes to five dollars and you hand him only one.After all, by your logic, it isn't "one." It's something else.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

One object. Sure. But by your logic, I can hand him five apples instead of five dollars, since both of them are "five".Five dollars is not the same as one dollar. Five dollars is not the same as five apples. One and five are not the same.But one object is not the same as "one". One object is one object, not "one."I seem to recall you losing this argument several years ago, and with the logic you're using here, no wonder. I think you're just going to have to accept that the kind of Platonism you espouse here may be endemic to mathematicians, but it hardly convinces anybody else.To anticipate a direction where this conversation might go, if mathematicians discover, rather than invent, mathematical truths (like numbers), then where do the falsehoods come from? If the answer is "imagination", then why can't mathematicians be imagining the truths, as well? If the answer is "the same place the falsehoods come from", then you have the Library of Babel problem, where finding a truth among all the falsehoods isn't a fundamentally different problem than making it up (as, in the Library of Babel, finding a specific book requires you to write it in order to specify the search term.)The Library of Babel disproves Plato's Cave.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then what do we have? Two?

---

​

One object.

---

So number is an inherent property that does exist. Thank you.That said, who cares about the object? I didn't ask about the object. I asked about its property. That is, if a red object doesn't have the property of being "red," then what is it? "Blue"? If one object doesn't have the property of being "one," then what is it? "Two?

quote:

---

Sure. But by your logic, I can hand him five apples instead of five dollars, since both of them are "five".

---

Huh? Where did that come from? An object can't have more than one property? If it has color, it can't have mass?

quote:

---

But one object is not the same as "one".

---

I never said it was. A red object is not the same as "red," either. A massive object is not the same as "mass." These are properties that are endemic to the nature of existence. They come along for the ride and help describe what they are. Are you about to apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle outside of its defined parameters?And again I point out, both color and mass are relative.

quote:

---

I think you're just going to have to accept that the kind of Platonism you espouse here may be endemic to mathematicians, but it hardly convinces anybody else.

---

Isn't that the same argument creationists try to use? Hey, we know we're not biologists, not biochemists, haven't done any actual research into the subject, have only half-remembered what we've learned in school, and have certainly never done any advanced work in the field, but who the hell needs all of that? I'm just as smart as the people who spend their lives studying this subject and surely my opinion is just as valid as theirs!Great, so you aren't convinced about the reality of number. Neither are the creationists convinced by the overwhelming evidence regarding evolution, but we don't really pay them no nevermind, now do we? They aren't in a position to criticize due to their lack of experience in the subject.

quote:

---

To anticipate a direction where this conversation might go, if mathematicians discover, rather than invent, mathematical truths (like numbers), then where do the falsehoods come from?

---

Huh? Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:

---

The Library of Babel disproves Plato's Cave.

---

Hint: Being a "Platonist" in the mathematical sense is not the same thing as being a "Platonist" as in Plato's Parable of the Cave.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

What is your point in relation to the topic concerning my statement in Message 21: Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of. and my subsequent explanations in Message 30 and Message 36?If you are holding one object, then you are holding one object. The word one in this case is an adjective. You are not holding a one. You are holding whatever the object is.

quote:

---

Tell that to the guy at the checkout stand when the bill comes to five dollars and you hand him only one.

---

I would hand him one five-dollar bill. As I've tried to point out to you in the messages I've referenced, I'm talking about numbers in nature.Although I have a set of magnetic numbers on my fridge, when I stand on my back porch I see no such numbers in nature.Please clarify what you're getting at in relation to the topic.Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected link.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You do. When you asked "what do we have when we have one object?" Do I need to quote you asking that question, or can I assume you remember?What we have is one object. Not "one". Asked and answered. It's one object.Are you just going to repeat questions I've already answered? Look, I remember how this works with you, Rrhain. You're going to ignore answers and pretend like I said something different than what I wrote - like above, where you make the spurious claim that I just said "number is an inherent property". You're going to reply line-by-line instead of to representative excerpts so that message length will explode out of control. You're going to use extremely long messages to conceal personal attacks from the admin's notice.You're going to engage in every kind of disingenuity and dishonest behavior, and then accuse me of doing so.Did you think I forgot? Honestly, I had quite enough of that kind of behavior from an entire year of Holmes. Do you think I'm at all interested in doing that with you? Think again, please. It came from your logic. Do you really need me to quote you again? If you don't get it yet I doubt you're going to. If this is feigned ignorance then I doubt you're ever going to admit you understood all along.It was a statement in plain English, Rrhain. Are you claiming that you don't understand plain English, now? That's a disappointing way to begin our first conversation in so many years, I must say.I really have no taste these days for your preferred method of arguing. I'm disappointed that you felt you had to crank up the disingenuity so soon, since you're a poster that I very much respect. I had hoped there was some degree of mutuality about that but I perceive that I was wrong.It's a pleasure to read your posts when you're right, Rrhain, I do mean that, but when you're obviously and clearly wrong your behavior is infuriatingly dishonest and disrespectful. Like Holmes I don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself would have such a hard time recognizing and admitting error. Hint: it was just a slogan I used in summation.Too bad, Rrhain. I had really hoped you had learned something about how to behave on the losing side. By all means, take the last word, but I don't expect I'll reply on this subject any further.

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

What is your point in relation to the topic concerning my statement in Message 21: Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of. and my subsequent explanations in Message 29 and Message 36?

---

That such a statement is wrong: Numbers do exist in nature. They are part and parcel of existence. Existence cannot be without number.

quote:

---

I would hand him one five-dollar bill.

---

(*chuckle*) Yes, I get the joke, but what would that "five" dollar bill be worth? "Four"? By your logic, you could claim it is "six" and demand change.

quote:

---

Although I have a set of magnetic numbers on my fridge, when I stand on my back porch I see no such numbers in nature.

---

You are confusing symbology with substance. The specific characters in the specific sequence, "red," is not the actual color. It is just a symbol.

quote:

---

Please clarify what you're getting at in relation to the topic.

---

That your statement is wrong. Number does exist in nature. It is part and parcel of existence.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.