What is the most uninteresting number?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:56 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:42.
Keep trying.

PhilX
Nope. That is the most uninteresting number, Douglas said so.
Who is Douglas and why does he say so?

PhilX

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10936
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:05 am

Don't Panic, it's all to do with the inverse towelling function and mices 4D computational algorithm.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:06 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I'm not denying real numbers
That's exactly what you appear to be doing if you are arguing any version of constructivism/finitism.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: but pointing out a logical weakness to your position.
I don't see it.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: What I'm saying is that as soon as you're saying a number is uninteresting, then you're automatically saying it is interesting (and one of the reasons why nobody should be bored).
That argument is about positive integers, which are well-ordered. Picking out something completely randomly doesn't make it interesting. The ONLY way to choose a noncomputable number is randomly.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: For me I accept irrational and transcendental numbers because the axioms of algebra do apply to them.
If you accept irrational numbers then among those are the noncomputable numbers.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Even if I can't see the whole number doesn't mean I don't reject it. The same with black holes, e.g., because there is plenty of indirect evidence to support their existence.
Not following the point of that remark.

Ok here is a thought experiment. You have a big bowl of identical ping-pong balls in a completely dark room. You stick your hand into the bowl and randomly choose a particular ping-pong balls. Is that ping-pong ball interesting purely by virtue of having been chosen randomly? This is really the crux of my argument, I don't have to talk about real numbers. Only about randomly choosing among indistinguishable alternatives.
Are you saying that the order of a number is what makes it interesting? Or where it is on the list of numbers? I would say there are any number of reasons that would make a number interesting. The most interesting is declaring a number to be uninteresting which automatically makes it interesting, thereby nullifying the declaration.

With noncomputable numbers, are you saying it is interesting or uninteresting? (at least to you)

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:19 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Are you saying that the order of a number is what makes it interesting? Or where it is on the list of numbers? I would say there are any number of reasons that would make a number interesting. The most interesting is declaring a number to be uninteresting which automatically makes it interesting, thereby nullifying the declaration.

With noncomputable numbers, are you saying it is interesting or uninteresting? (at least to you)
Could you please respond to the pingpong balls? That's the crux of my argument. The balls are identical and indistinguishable. You pick one randomly. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that it was chosen at random. It has no other characteristic that differentiates it from any other ball. Please comment on this. That's the only way I can understand your objection.

You are totally misunderstanding the math, since order properties are not at issue here. So forget the noncomputable reals for the moment. Just respond to the pingpong ball example.

Also, is this the Wiki article you're referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesti ... er_paradox

You'll see that the "paradox" applies specifically to the positive integers. This is the point I already made in the very first sentence of my very first post.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:27 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Are you saying that the order of a number is what makes it interesting? Or where it is on the list of numbers? I would say there are any number of reasons that would make a number interesting. The most interesting is declaring a number to be uninteresting which automatically makes it interesting, thereby nullifying the declaration.

With noncomputable numbers, are you saying it is interesting or uninteresting? (at least to you)
Could you please respond to the pingpong balls? That's the crux of my argument. The balls are identical and indistinguishable. You pick one randomly. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that it was chosen at random. It has no other characteristic that differentiates it from any other ball. Please comment on this. That's the only way I can understand your objection.

You are totally misunderstanding the math, since order properties are not at issue here. So forget the noncomputable reals for the moment. Just respond to the pingpong ball example.

Also, is this the Wiki article you're referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesti ... er_paradox

You'll see that the "paradox" applies specifically to the positive integers. This is the point I already made in the very first sentence of my very first post.
Here's something you're overlooking with the randomly chosen ball. Why was that one chosen and the others weren't? Interesting?

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:39 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's something you're overlooking with the randomly chosen ball. Why was that one chosen and the others weren't? Interesting?
It's completely random. Do you regard that ball as interesting solely by virtue of having been selected? If so, that's post-hoc interestingess. Before the random choice, nothing whatsoever distinguished that ball. So in order to explain my example to you, I need to know whether you regard post-hoc interestingness as the same as intrinsic interestingness.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:44 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's something you're overlooking with the randomly chosen ball. Why was that one chosen and the others weren't? Interesting?
It's completely random. Do you regard that ball as interesting solely by virtue of having been selected? If so, that's post-hoc interestingess. Before the random choice, nothing whatsoever distinguished that ball. So in order to explain my example to you, I need to know whether you regard post-hoc interestingness as the same as intrinsic interestingness.
No such thing as completely random. Most likely it was selected since it was nearest to the one who selected it.
So maybe the question should be what made it nearest?
Interesting?

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:03 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Here's something you're overlooking with the randomly chosen ball. Why was that one chosen and the others weren't? Interesting?
It's completely random. Do you regard that ball as interesting solely by virtue of having been selected? If so, that's post-hoc interestingess. Before the random choice, nothing whatsoever distinguished that ball. So in order to explain my example to you, I need to know whether you regard post-hoc interestingness as the same as intrinsic interestingness.
No such thing as completely random. Most likely it was selected since it was nearest to the one who selected it.
So maybe the question should be what made it nearest?
Interesting?

PhilX
Well, physical pingpong balls are are course never all the same due to manufacturing inaccuracies and I agree with you on that.

Which is exactly why I used random real numbers. Those ARE truly indistinguishable because they are abstract mental constructs.

If you would grant me that we can make a random choice of pingpong balls which are made in God's factory so that they are truly identical, we could make some progress. Does the ball become interesting only after the fact? If so, then it was not interesting before the selection was made.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:14 am

wtf wrote:Well, physical pingpong balls are are course never all the same due to manufacturing inaccuracies and I agree with you on that.

Which is exactly why I used random real numbers. Those ARE truly indistinguishable because they are abstract mental constructs.

If you would grant me that we can make a random choice of pingpong balls which are made in God's factory so that they are truly identical, we could make some progress. Does the ball become interesting only after the fact? If so, then it was not interesting before the selection was made.
Doesn't matter how identical they are as position is a factor too. And interesting/uninteresting is a human idea (and animals too) so what makes the "random" ball interesting isn't the ball, rather it is the selecting and witnessing humans so the idea of interesting isn't intrinsic with the selected ball.

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:03 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And interesting/uninteresting is a human idea (and animals too) so what makes the "random" ball interesting isn't the ball, rather it is the selecting and witnessing humans so the idea of interesting isn't intrinsic with the selected ball.
Then you're going in circles. If you stick your hand in a pile of mud and pull out a handful, that act does not make the handful of mud any more interesting that the mud you didn't grab; unless you are defining everything in the world as interesting. In which case you're saying nothing at all. Right?

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:06 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:And interesting/uninteresting is a human idea (and animals too) so what makes the "random" ball interesting isn't the ball, rather it is the selecting and witnessing humans so the idea of interesting isn't intrinsic with the selected ball.
Then you're going in circles. If you stick your hand in a pile of mud and pull out a handful, that act does not make the handful of mud any more interesting that the mud you didn't grab; unless you are defining everything in the world as interesting. In which case you're saying nothing at all. Right?
Not quite. Interesting is discerning. Up to the individual to decide what is interesting, right?

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:12 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Not quite. Interesting is discerning. Up to the individual to decide what is interesting, right?
If it's up to the individual, then you agree there is no objective answer to your question and anything that anybody says is right. Looks like we're done here. I'm sorry the interesting mathematical content got lost in your wordplay.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:18 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Not quite. Interesting is discerning. Up to the individual to decide what is interesting, right?
If it's up to the individual, then you agree there is no objective answer to your question and anything that anybody says is right. Looks like we're done here. I'm sorry the interesting mathematical content got lost in your wordplay.
Then where do you think interesting/uninteresting comes from?

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by wtf » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:26 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Then where do you think interesting/uninteresting comes from?
If I understand you correctly, if I asked you if there's an uninteresting grain of sand on the beach, you'd say that every grain of sand on the beach is interesting because it's in a particular location and a sexy lifeguard might be nearby.

This is vacuous. It sounds like you lack the discernment to identify what's interesting. Actually that's true, isn't it?

Really, we're done here. Please don't think me rude if I don't respond further. To the extent that you're interested in math, you should think about the noncomputable numbers. The vast majority of points on a line can not possibly have their locations described with a finite amount of information. That's interesting. Individual grains of sand, and individual noncomputable numbers, are not.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5035
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What is the most uninteresting number?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:37 am

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Then where do you think interesting/uninteresting comes from?
If I understand you correctly, if I asked you if there's an uninteresting grain of sand on the beach, you'd say that every grain of sand on the beach is interesting because it's in a particular location and a sexy lifeguard might be nearby.

This is vacuous. It sounds like you lack the discernment to identify what's interesting. Actually that's true, isn't it?

Really, we're done here. Please don't think me rude if I don't respond further. To the extent that you're interested in math, you should think about the noncomputable numbers. The vast majority of points on a line can not possibly have their locations described with a finite amount of information. That's interesting. Individual grains of sand, and individual noncomputable numbers, are not.
In response to your first paragraph, you have misinterpreted me. With your second paragraph, you said it "sounds like...", but then you say "actually that's true..." contradicting yourself.

Math isn't all objective. It partially depends on what you believe. That's why there are several foundations of math.

Since you say you're done, then I take it you ran out of arguments. Better luck to you in the future.

PhilX

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests