Counting as grounded in Assumption of Void

[Eodnhoj7]

Anti-foundationalists.

Which anti-foundationalist said that?

So you are asking for a foundational statement?

[Skepdick]

Anti-foundationalists.

Which anti-foundationalist said that?

So you are asking for a foundational statement?

No. I am not. I am asking you to quote the anti-foundationalist you are mis-representing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Which anti-foundationalist said that?

So you are asking for a foundational statement?

No. I am not. I am asking you to quote the anti-foundationalist you are mis-representing.

How can I? If antifoundationalism is an absence of foundation, it cannot be defined as this definition is a foundation...its a mu statement.

[Skepdick]

How can I? If antifoundationalism is an absence of foundation, it cannot be defined as this definition is a foundation...its a mu statement.

I don't know what a mu statement is. It's your private language. It's incoherent to me.

[Dontaskme]

I am Skepdick.

You first have to exist before you can answer the question of who am I


Are there two of you?

[Skepdick]

You first have to exist before you can answer the question of who am I

Correct. Which is why I answered it.

[Dontaskme]

You first have to exist before you can answer the question of who am I

Correct. Which is why I answered it.

If you already exist, why would you need to question whether you exist or not, why would the question who am I even arise in you, obviously if the question arises in you then you are going to have the answer because you are already self evident to yourself.


Every problem/question can be brought back to this initial problem/question: who am I?

[Skepdick]

If you already exist, why would you need to question whether you exist or not, why would the question who am I even arise in you
, obviously if the question arises in you then you are going to have the answer because you are already self evident to yourself.

I didn't ask that question, and it didn't arise in me. It arose in you - you asked that question of me.

You also made a proposition. "You first have to exist before you can answer the question of who am I".
I answered your question "Who am I?" with "I am Skepdick".

If you had any doubts about my existence - that should've settled them.

Every problem/question can be brought back to this initial problem/question: who am I?

I told you who I am. It didn't help me answer the question "Were you doubting my existence?"

[Dontaskme]

I didn't ask that question, and it didn't arise in me. It arose in you - you asked that question of me.

But you only assumed the question was referring to you. A question can only refer to itself.

So why would you answer a question you didn't ask?

[Skepdick]

But you only assumed the question was referring to you. A question can only refer to itself.

Then you probably shouldn't have typed it out and pushed "Submit"?
A question is meaningless when separated from the mind that asked it.

So why would you answer a question you didn't ask?

Because you asked it. Of me. On a public forum. So I figured you wanted to know and I politely answered.

Why would you ask me a question if you don't want me to answer it?

[Dontaskme]

But you only assumed the question was referring to you. A question can only refer to itself.

Then you probably shouldn't have typed it out and pushed "Submit"?

I have no idea of who is typing words, I can only make an assumption of who. That's why the question arises in the first place because there is an assumption that there is a mind that wants to know what it cannot know.

A question is meaningless when separated from the mind that asked it.

That's like saying a story in a book can be separated from the book.

So why would you answer a question you didn't ask?

Because you asked it.

If I asked it then I would have known the answer since I already exist. Why would I then ask you the question that I already have the answer to? Questions can only refer to themself.

[Dontaskme]

Because you asked it. Of me. On a public forum. So I figured you wanted to know and I politely answered.

Why would you ask me a question if you don't want me to answer it?

I repeat. A question of who am I can only refer to itself. Not another self.

If you already exist, the question can only come from the other self which is your identified self, the named self.

That other self does not exist, for if it did, there would be two of you.

The question of where is New York city can be answered by any I because that is common knowledge known, known to anyone that has acquired that knowledge.

[Eodnhoj7]

How can I? If antifoundationalism is an absence of foundation, it cannot be defined as this definition is a foundation...its a mu statement.

I don't know what a mu statement is. It's your private language. It's incoherent to me.

Google it...it is not private language.

[Arising_uk]

... 3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting ...

How do you account for counting before anyone thought of line representations or 'zero' or to put it another way how do you account for innumerate shepherds being able to count their flock?

[Eodnhoj7]

... 3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting ...

How do you account for counting before anyone thought of line representations or 'zero' or to put it another way how do you account for innumerate shepherds being able to count their flock?

Zero and void are the same thing viewed from different angles, we both angles of awareness as empty assumptions equivocated to the same point being observed.

Also the phrases "Zeroing out" and "Voiding out" are the same thing. The word "void" and the symbol "0" (or the word "zero") are empty concepts in themselves.

We cannot say the line representations where thought of prior or after the flock considering the line or dot has been using for counting mechanisms intuitively for millenia.

Second the point as void, voiding itself results in one point moving to another point. If I divide a point in half I still have a ration of 2 points to the original 1. Or two points as 1 considering a point is always a point.

So if I have 3 points, and all points are the same this is 1/3 of a point and 3/1 points simultaneously.

Third, in measuring distance intuitively when hunting or simply pointing to something in a distance the line is a constant between the observed point of awareness and the point that is "assumed" as an extension of the observer. This basic point of the observer and the point in time/space is the most basic act of definition intuitively observing a linear connection.