Numbers, what are they?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:35 am Dangerous religions ,which hand power to the enemy, are structurally hierarchical when they should be networks of peers.
I don't disagree there are "dangerous religions." I don't disagree that there are even more "dangerous Atheists." But when you say they "should be," what code are you calling upon there, B?

You seem to say that you know somebody owes it to us that belief systems should be "networks of peers": who told you they "should" be? :shock:
'Atheist' has been variously defined throughout times and customs:
Not really.

It's too simplistic a concept to allow for much of that. You can add things that are not Atheism to Atheism...such as, say, an Atheist Satanist or an Atheist Communist...but any complexity comes from the noun, not the adjective. Atheism itself is a terribly trivial idea -- the gratuitous wish that God should be banished from the universe. That's all.
One glaring example of idolatry of the institution is the paedophile scandal in certain churches
The Catholics, you mean? Yes, they have a serious problem there. But it's not hierarchy, because hierarchy is a ubiquitous phenomenon which happens in all human situations in which quality of anything is a concern. A "team" is a hierarchical organization. So is a "workplace." So is a "school." And so on.

The Catholic problem is the papal dictate of celibacy for clergy, when coupled with the sinful nature of mankind. But paedophiles also happen in other organizations. Secular schools, for example, are certainly not free of that, and children's clubs, and certainly the internet itself. Yet you probably don't mind participation in any of those hierarchical organizations.
Skepdick
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:51 pm The point is that there is ALWAYS a prerequisite. ("Predecessor" means somebody died, by the way.) There is no digit that can be written (Just try it, and see) because the prerequisite for the prerequisite for the prerequisite...infinitely backward...is never located.

You can literally define the thing you are looking for, to have EXACTLY the properties you desire.

Let x be a number such that for all y (where y is an integer) x < y.

And then....

Successor(x) returns x+1
Successor(Successor(x)) returns x + 2
Prerequisite(x) returns Error.

Because the rules of the formal system are whatever you want them to be (as per Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox).

The irony, of course, is that I can tell you exactly as much about the exact value of x as you can tell me about your abstract deity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:51 pm Since the chain of causes is said to go back infinitely, no prerequisite is ever met. And nothing ever happens.
That's just a confusion of the a priori and a posteriori perspectives.
Belinda
Posts: 4595
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:00 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:35 am Dangerous religions ,which hand power to the enemy, are structurally hierarchical when they should be networks of peers.
I don't disagree there are "dangerous religions." I don't disagree that there are even more "dangerous Atheists." But when you say they "should be," what code are you calling upon there, B?

You seem to say that you know somebody owes it to us that belief systems should be "networks of peers": who told you they "should" be? :shock:
'Atheist' has been variously defined throughout times and customs:
Not really.

It's too simplistic a concept to allow for much of that. You can add things that are not Atheism to Atheism...such as, say, an Atheist Satanist or an Atheist Communist...but any complexity comes from the noun, not the adjective. Atheism itself is a terribly trivial idea -- the gratuitous wish that God should be banished from the universe. That's all.
One glaring example of idolatry of the institution is the paedophile scandal in certain churches
The Catholics, you mean? Yes, they have a serious problem there. But it's not hierarchy, because hierarchy is a ubiquitous phenomenon which happens in all human situations in which quality of anything is a concern. A "team" is a hierarchical organization. So is a "workplace." So is a "school." And so on.

The Catholic problem is the papal dictate of celibacy for clergy, when coupled with the sinful nature of mankind. But paedophiles also happen in other organizations. Secular schools, for example, are certainly not free of that, and children's clubs, and certainly the internet itself. Yet you probably don't mind participation in any of those hierarchical organizations.
The "code I am working on" is networks are better than hierarchies, for several reasons. Democracy is a form of control akin to network. Some religions are more democratic than others. True, there is the temptation felt by insecure individuals to idolise some other who is maybe a father figure, or a success figure, or a mother figure.It is also true that some talented individuals move into controlling roles regardless of their initial intention. However these are not good reasons to institutionalise hierarchies.

Regarding the paedophile scandals, I don't refer only to RC . Anglicans have been bedevilled by it too. It is fundamentally wrong that some individuals are granted spiritual authority over other individuals, whether the others are children or adults. Every individual should be respected and be helped to be spiritually autonomous.

Persons in positions of authority such as trainers, medics, university teachers, school teachers, social workers, police, and so forth all ought to treat every other individual with respect as individuals in their own right , and help them towards that goal.Network control more than hierarchical control tends to lead to respect for individuals however lowly these individuals be.
Nick_A
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Nick_A »

cicero117 wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:53 pm As I was solving my calculus homework, a simple question popped into my mind..

What exactly is a number? How can something define our world like so?

Is it real? because well..we can't see them, we can only calculate them,
or rather is it only a system of some kind so that we can make sense of the things around us?

It's a "basic" ontological problem, but I'm interested in what others think :D
It is common in secular society to only consider the numbers 1-10 for example as a measure of quantity. But can they also be a measure of quality? What is the quality of one? What is the quality of three? 2+3=5 in quantity but not in quality. Can you think of a way numbers can measure quality as well as quantity?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:19 pm The "code I am working on" is networks are better than hierarchies,
That's not at all obvious. It isn't obvious at all that hierarchies are bad. Some are, some aren't...but hierarchies are inevitable, because the alternative is to have no differences of quality.

Even "networks" have hierarchies: a network of equals is practically useless, in fact.
Democracy is a form of control akin to network.
It's not, actually...but I'll let you finish your tale.
Regarding the paedophile scandals, I don't refer only to RC . Anglicans have been bedevilled by it too.
I had not heard. But I do know that some Atheists like Jimmy Saville certainly were.
It is fundamentally wrong that some individuals are granted spiritual authority over other individuals, whether the others are children or adults.
In general, I'd agree with that.
Every individual should be respected and be helped to be spiritually autonomous.

Well, the two aren't actually the same. To "respect" a person is often to "teach" them what they need to know, which is a "hierarchical" arrangement. To care for another is also hierarchical, because one is the giver and one is the receiver.

I think you need to think more broadly about what "hierarchy" means. It's not always an evil. Families are hierarchical, in that the children do not dictate to parents, but it would be foolish to say that a nurturing parental authority is evil. Practically all human endeavours end up being hierarchical, because division of responsibilities requires it.
Persons in positions of authority such as trainers, medics, university teachers, school teachers, social workers, police, and so forth all ought to treat every other individual with respect as individuals in their own right , and help them towards that goal.
But that, too, is hierarchical. The list you gave is all of people who have superior knowledge or power in some way. Teachers have more knowledge, medics more skill, police more power in the justice system, and so on. That makes the "individuals" you mention hierarchically below them.

So I'm back to my original point, B. It's not clear to me why you think hierarchies are bad. The only place where I would agree with you they're clearly the wrong structure is when we start putting people in categories of spirituality as higher or lower in value. But in matters of skill, knowledge, age, familial relation, government, business, education, medicine, and so on, hierarchies are not evil...they're a necessity, and actually a benefit.

You don't go to your doctor because he knows less than you do, or even because he only knows what you also know. You don't go to "network" a solution with him. You go to get help from somebody who knows. Very hierarchical.
Belinda
Posts: 4595
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:23 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:19 pm The "code I am working on" is networks are better than hierarchies,
That's not at all obvious. It isn't obvious at all that hierarchies are bad. Some are, some aren't...but hierarchies are inevitable, because the alternative is to have no differences of quality.

Even "networks" have hierarchies: a network of equals is practically useless, in fact.
Democracy is a form of control akin to network.
It's not, actually...but I'll let you finish your tale.
Regarding the paedophile scandals, I don't refer only to RC . Anglicans have been bedevilled by it too.
I had not heard. But I do know that some Atheists like Jimmy Saville certainly were.
It is fundamentally wrong that some individuals are granted spiritual authority over other individuals, whether the others are children or adults.
In general, I'd agree with that.
Every individual should be respected and be helped to be spiritually autonomous.

Well, the two aren't actually the same. To "respect" a person is often to "teach" them what they need to know, which is a "hierarchical" arrangement. To care for another is also hierarchical, because one is the giver and one is the receiver.

I think you need to think more broadly about what "hierarchy" means. It's not always an evil. Families are hierarchical, in that the children do not dictate to parents, but it would be foolish to say that a nurturing parental authority is evil. Practically all human endeavours end up being hierarchical, because division of responsibilities requires it.
Persons in positions of authority such as trainers, medics, university teachers, school teachers, social workers, police, and so forth all ought to treat every other individual with respect as individuals in their own right , and help them towards that goal.
But that, too, is hierarchical. The list you gave is all of people who have superior knowledge or power in some way. Teachers have more knowledge, medics more skill, police more power in the justice system, and so on. That makes the "individuals" you mention hierarchically below them.

So I'm back to my original point, B. It's not clear to me why you think hierarchies are bad. The only place where I would agree with you they're clearly the wrong structure is when we start putting people in categories of spirituality as higher or lower in value. But in matters of skill, knowledge, age, familial relation, government, business, education, medicine, and so on, hierarchies are not evil...they're a necessity, and actually a benefit.

You don't go to your doctor because he knows less than you do, or even because he only knows what you also know. You don't go to "network" a solution with him. You go to get help from somebody who knows. Very hierarchical.
Immanuel, the general drift of your support for the hierarchical structure describes what is usually presumed to be the unalterable case.

My support for networks is like the trend for parents to help their children to become autonomous via practising personal autonomy within the family, geared of course to the child's stage of development. There is urgent need for children in care of local authorities to be consulted about their wants and needs.


Network is like the newer trend for patients to be consulted and asked permission about treatments. The doctor is an expert for special occasions or maintenance of public health not an emissary from the Almighty.

Teachers are at this present time not the authorities they once were. Every non-teacher thinks he knows as much about how to teach . Teaching is sometimes if not often perceived not as expertise but as something lay people can do just as well as teachers.

Your critique of networks is true and I have already said much the same as you. In short, there is in society inevitable differences in abilities between persons. Networking is therefore not perfectly attainable however democratic leadership is proceeding in the right direction.

BYW Jimmy Saville was an independent criminal whose crimes did not stem from an institution and that institution's ideology. Saville's crimes have highlighted the need for hierarchies such as prevail in hospitals and care homes to be abolished so that lesser minions can feel powerful enough to alert the managers to wrongdoing.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:26 am Immanuel, the general drift of your support for the hierarchical structure describes what is usually presumed to be the unalterable case.
It is. There will always be hierarchies, so long as people value qualities in anything. But the argument is not a "support" of that fact: it's a mere pointing out of it. Jordan Peterson has made the same argument.
My support for networks is like the trend for parents to help their children to become autonomous via practising personal autonomy within the family, geared of course to the child's stage of development.
You've failed to recognize how hierarchical that is. If it were truly "networked," then children would raise parents as often as parents raise children. But the latter never happens, and the former always does.
There is urgent need for children in care of local authorities to be consulted about their wants and needs.
Of course. But my toddler's desire to ride his tricycle in the roadway does not supersede my wisdom in keeping him on the sidewalk. And if I let him play on the street, do you think I love him more, because I "consult him' on the decision? Or do I love her less? :shock:
Teachers are at this present time not the authorities they once were.

Don't kid yourself. And if you knew me, you would probably realize that's just about the worst example you could pick. :wink:

Teachers have less power relatively speaking than they used to. But they're still the person with the big desk, at the front of the class, who tell children what to do and think. There's nothing close to an equality of power there, and shouldn't be: after all, why would you send your kid to somebody who doesn't even know any more than your kid does? :shock:
democratic leadership is proceeding in the right direction.
If that's so, then why do you sponsor Socialism? Socialism claims to have NO 'leadership," but then inevitably becomes dictatorship. So it always lacks either "leadership" or equality.

It doesn't give you either of the things you claim you want. :shock:
Post Reply