On the self.

[Morm]

Just because I define the self in such a way that it looks supernatural does not mean that I believe it exist.

In fact, I'm defining something I am sure does not exist.

There is no purpose nor way to properly define something that you know does not exist. It's effectively like the number zero- defining it by saying what it is not (ie any actual number). Note that with zero it seldom works or is necessary in any equation (ie 1/0 or 1+2+0=3), just like this topic.

From the OP it's pretty clear that you had a different purpose for this but as it turns out people on a pokemon website have intellectually jousted you over the idea and you have come up short on substance. That's just what it appears to be comparing the above quoted with your OP.

 

[chaos]

There is no purpose nor way to properly define something that you know does not exist. It's effectively like the number zero- defining it by saying what it is not (ie any actual number). Note that with zero it seldom works or is necessary in any equation (ie 1/0 or 1+2+0=3), just like this topic.

What are you talking about? Zero is a number. It exists about as much as 1 or 8 or e^pi do.

There are an infinite number of partial functions and division happens to be one of them. As for the second equation, 0 is the additive identity; you could claim that 1 doesn't exist via the same logic (5*1*1*1*1=5; it is the multiplicative identity!!!)

 

[moot]

It's effectively like the number zero- defining it by saying what it is not (ie any actual number).

if i am remembering my transreal arithmetic correctly the idea you are referring to is that of nullity

 

[Jack Jack]

Zero is very much a quantity that exist. It's less than 1 but more than -1.

-0, on the other hand, does not exist. And yet, it is sometimes useful to consider the quantity -0 when doing some operations. Besides, the limit when X grows toward zero of X is a quantity that exist.

The infinity is a quantity that does not exist. And yet, the concept of infinity is very useful in virtually every application of calculus.

There is a proper way to define something that does not exist. In fact, you cannot say that something does not exist unless you defined it properly in the first place.

With the help of Brain, I've defined the self as something positive : What has the qualia of it's own nature and existence - It's not my fault if qualia do not exist XD! However, without qualia, by definition, sensible experience does not "feel like" anything. Without qualia, we are just moving lumps of flesh with no feelings.

Moreover, I've yet to see a formal, convincing demonstration (read : one that does not rely or refer to the massive heap of nonsense and contradiction that is commonly known as common sense ) that "we" could possibly refer to any part or the whole of our bodies. How can something physical be sentient without qualia ? Let alone introspective ?

 

[chaos]

-0, on the other hand, does not exist. And yet, it is sometimes useful to consider the quantity -0 when doing some operations. Besides, the limit when X grows toward zero of X is a quantity that exist.

The infinity is a quantity that does not exist. And yet, the concept of infinity is very useful in virtually every application of calculus.

This, again, is wrong on both accounts. Whether something "exists" or not in mathematics depends on which formal system you are working in. In the theory of natural numbers, 3.5 is a quantity that does not exist, yet in the theory of reals it does. In the theory of real numbers, infinity does not exist, yet it is treated as a formal object when discussing the cardinality of sets (for instance, the set of real numbers is bigger than the set of natural numbers when you add cardinal numbers to your formal system--when working solely in the theory of real numbers, we cannot assign a real number to describe the size and we wave our hands and call it "infinite").

Also, in the theory of naturals, integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers, -0 exists, but it refers to the same mathematical object as 0. If you consider a different formal system, such as IEEE floating point, -0 is a different mathematical object than 0.

What I am trying to say is that the mathematics most people are familiar with (real numbers) is not the "only mathematics that exists." Whether or not something is expressible in a formal system ("exists") depends on which formal system you pick. Numbers are not any more real than graphs, or cardinals, or any other mathematical object.

 

[billymills]

There is no purpose nor way to properly define something that you know does not exist. It's effectively like the number zero- defining it by saying what it is not (ie any actual number). Note that with zero it seldom works or is necessary in any equation (ie 1/0 or 1+2+0=3), just like this topic.

I was going to post something just like this, then I realised I had no analogy that fit what I was trying to explain. Ultimately I hoped someone else would come up with something better.

After a few people trying to convince me that 0 and -0 are not numbers, I feel I can give it another shot.

Jack Jack,
Defining something you know does not exist has a few problems. First off, you've precluded any possibility of discussion about the topic (you already know the answer!). If you're trying to get the opinion of the masses, you're probably better off not poisoning the well and allowing people to argue before coming to any conclusions.

Secondly, what good is discussing the concept if it doesn't exist. It could simply be that it doesn't exist because you defined it that way. In which case, I don't think we need more terms that explain that which doesn't exist.

Case in point, a sfgasuion doesn't exist. But simply opening a thread and stating: "A sfgasuion doesn't." exist neither promotes discussion nor is it really useful information.

 

[vonFiedler]

Just because I define the self in such a way that it looks supernatural does not mean that I believe it exist.

In fact, I'm defining something I am sure does not exist.

Far be it from any of us to argue with someone who does not exist.

 

[cantab]

-0, on the other hand, does not exist.

-0 does exist, and is exactly equal to +0. Just two ways of writing the same number.

 

[Scoopapa]

With the help of Brain, I've defined the self as something positive : What has the qualia of it's own nature and existence - It's not my fault if qualia do not exist XD! However, without qualia, by definition, sensible experience does not "feel like" anything. Without qualia, we are just moving lumps of flesh with no feelings.

I know qualia exist because they are the fundamental aspect of my experience. The stimuli that cause those qualia, in the purest philosophical sense, don't necessarily exist in the form that I conceive them*, but the qualia are the most direct aspects of my existence. I can't say the same for anyone else, because I have no direct experience of their perceptions, but I at least know that my consciousness and experiences exist, in some form, because I have them. File that one under "I think, therefore I am". The fact that consciousness and experience exist in some form is a tenable starting assumption for any argument, then, because I have a certainty of it's existence which is actually greater than the certainty of anything that my senses tell me exists.

Moving on to your definition of the self: "What has the qualia of it's own nature and existence". So here you are talking about something that is capable of processing data (existence) into some other form (qualia). In a sense, what you are talking about is something that is intelligent (only in the sense that a calculator is also intelligent). The thing is, that kind of rudimentary intelligence is only possible as a social process between multiple entities. In computers, it's a social process between transistors, and in our brains, it's between neurons. The things that must happen in order for information to be processed require multiple entities to communicate with each other, plain and simple. Therefore, any definition of the self that involves intelligence requires some kind of similar setup. In fact, it is very difficult to come up with a function for the "self" that doesn't require some interactions between distinct entities in order to work.

This pretty much means that you need to retract your reasoning for why the brain can't be the self, since your entire argument for why the brain can't be the "self" is based on properties which I have shown that your "self" must also have. Consider the following:

1. Consciousness exists (we at least know our own consciousness exists). This means it is possible for some thing to have the property of consciousness.
2. There is no way, even theoretically, to prove the existence of a consciousness other than the one we experience.
3. The brain is an intelligent object that is heavily associated with conscious experience.
4. Your definition of self involves an intelligent object that is heavily associated with conscious experience.

The main objection with regarding the brain as the seat of consciousness is usually that we can't prove that it has that property. However, nobody even knows theoretically how to prove that something has the property of consciousness. Why then, must we invent an object to be the seat of consciousness? What is the property of said object that would allow us to prove it is conscious? If it is possible for something to be conscious and that we could never prove it, then inventing an extra object to house the consciousness is absolutely arbitrary. We are better off looking at what evidence links any known object to consciousness. All of said evidence points to the brain. While this doesn't conclusively prove the brain as the seat of consciousness, it makes it far and away the best candidate, as we have actual evidence to support a connection, rather than conjecture. Because your definition of "self" is so similar to the general definition of "consciousness", I think you really ought to consider that the brain might be the "essesnce of the self" after all.

*I have pointed out that the idea that our senses are totally deceiving us is plausible and logically coherent. This doesn't that mean there is any evidence that makes this the preferred hypothesis. Occam's razor generally leads me, and most others, to believe that it is far more likely that our senses are approximating the real world (with imperfect accuracy, of course), rather than inventing something that has no empirical analogue outside of our conscious experience. The point of mentioning that there is no true certainty outside of our conscious experience was a rebuttal to Jack Jack's saying "hey I'm not saying it actually exists", not an attempt to reduce this argument to "how do you know anything is real?".

 

[Brain]

What if my future self has the power to travel back in time to make my present self exist, creating a stable time loop ?

If you "zoom out" of the problem and see the whole time loop as an object, it can either be uncaused or caused by something else than yourself. Let's put it this way: if your existence is not logically necessary, then it can be traced back to a random event - a sort of coin flip where heads makes up some kind of world where you exist, and tails makes up one where you don't. It doesn't matter at all what kind of contortions you apply to the world (like time travel), as long as one can imagine another world where you don't exist.

I fully agree with this. I'll restate again that I don't believe free will exist, I don't think that individuality* exist. I just want to give them a chance. Because both are incompatible with any physicalist interpretation of the world.

You are the only one for whom they are incompatible. I am perfectly content with my definition of the self, which is the introspective part of the brain.

*Individuality is the state where two physically identical beings are somehow different.

That's an outlandish definition of individuality and you are pretty much the only one to hold it.

However, it's the state of the rock (and the surroundings) who decide where it's a good idea to throw it. So in practice, the rock has control over your brain. =P. Can two things have control over one another? I don't think that is inconsistent with your definition. However, it does undermine it's usefullness.

Neither the state of the rock nor the environment "decide" where it's a good idea to throw it. Pick up a rock, survey your surroundings, and think of where it's a good idea to throw it. I guarantee you that the reasoning on what places are good rock receptacles is not found in the rock nor in your surroundings. Let's put it this way: if you see some robot holding a rock and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to how it is programmed, can you predict where the rock will go?

With the help of Brain, I've defined the self as something positive : What has the qualia of it's own nature and existence - It's not my fault if qualia do not exist XD! However, without qualia, by definition, sensible experience does not "feel like" anything. Without qualia, we are just moving lumps of flesh with no feelings.

I thought I had pretty clearly stated how qualia and the self are physical parts of the brain. The "redness" quale is whatever part of your brain is turned on when you are exposed to red things or think about red things. That part is connected to other parts, constituting a semantic web, and gives feedback to lower layers of perception, explaining how thinking about red things makes you "see" red in your mind. Qualia can be explained by physical brain processes: they are nothing more than subconscious feature extraction from raw stimuli, each feature like "red", "green", "striped", "sweet", "grape", "foot crushed", etc. corresponding to a qualia.

Moreover, I've yet to see a formal, convincing demonstration (read : one that does not rely or refer to the massive heap of nonsense and contradiction that is commonly known as common sense ) that "we" could possibly refer to any part or the whole of our bodies. How can something physical be sentient without qualia ? Let alone introspective ?

Well I've just explained what qualia are in a physical world. If you still want to stick to metaphysical nonsense, you are free to do so, but personally I think that concepts ought to be defined in function of the measurable properties of the objects to which they are widely thought to apply.

*I have pointed out that the idea that our senses are totally deceiving us is plausible and logically coherent.

Actually, I think it's a fallacious idea. It's not clear what it means for our senses to be deceiving. I would argue that in so far that our sense data is organized in such a way that it allows us to predict and manipulate future sense data (like predicting the presence or absence of a wall right in front of us while walking), it can't possibly be deceiving - it does exactly what it should be doing. If for some reason that ceased to be true, the fact remains that our senses would have served us well for a long while. In order for our senses to be deceiving, you would have to imagine a scenario where every time you stop in front of a wall or wait for the light to be green, you would actually have reaped bigger benefits by running into the wall or causing an accident. It's possible, but it's also ridiculously contrived.

Basically, by taking various actions through time, we continually test whether our senses are reliable or not. So whatever may seem to reveal a deception would have to stack up with a very large number of missed opportunities for deception. Furthermore, it is you who take the leap of faith of thinking that your senses ought to mirror the "real world". Personally I only expect my senses to help me navigate hazards, find and use objects, enjoy books and movies, and so forth. So far, they have been reliable, and that is all I expect. An instance where senses might be deceiving would be dreams, but even in dreams, running into a truck or jumping off a skyscraper will rarely do you good.

 

[cantab]

I thought I had pretty clearly stated how qualia and the self are physical parts of the brain. The "redness" quale is whatever part of your brain is turned on when you are exposed to red things or think about red things.

Well, I don't think it's so much "parts", probably more likely to be patterns of activity.

Colour is an interesting case, in that the main "divisions" are to some extent cultural. The Ancient Greeks are known to have considered other aspects than hue more important.
Another effect is that "brown" can only be perceived when there are other, brighter colours as well (since it is essentially dark orange).

 

[Morm]

What are you talking about? Zero is a number. It exists about as much as 1 or 8 or e^pi do.

There are an infinite number of partial functions and division happens to be one of them. As for the second equation, 0 is the additive identity; you could claim that 1 doesn't exist via the same logic (5*1*1*1*1=5; it is the multiplicative identity!!!)

It may be a number but I defy you to demonstrate to me a physical quantity of zero- you cannot, because it simply does not exist. For example, I don't have a pet lion; I'm defining the number (0) of pet lions that I have based on what I don't have since it's impossible to have a quantity of zero in real life observable quantities.

Zero is a conceptual idea and not an observable quantity (unless defining what you do not have). I hope I explained the thought process there well enough for you math whizes to understand.

 

[Jack Jack]

"I think, therefore I am".

In fact, I think : " It "feels like something to exist", therefore I exist " would be more accurate.

You are the only one for whom they are incompatible. I am perfectly content with my definition of the self, which is the introspective part of the brain.

The brain is not introspective. The brain is only a large mass of interconnected neural cells. It's not any more introspective than a oversized computer chip.

That's an outlandish definition of individuality and you are pretty much the only one to hold it.

Not really. Free will means you can "do" things independantly of causality. Individuality means you can "be" whatever you are independantly of causality. As all physical phenomenon carry causality with them, then for individuality to exist, it must be independant of physical phenomenon.

Neither the state of the rock nor the environment "decide" where it's a good idea to throw it. Pick up a rock, survey your surroundings, and think of where it's a good idea to throw it. I guarantee you that the reasoning on what places are good rock receptacles is not found in the rock nor in your surroundings. Let's put it this way: if you see some robot holding a rock and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to how it is programmed, can you predict where the rock will go?

The robot does not have control over itself. It's programming does. And the programming does not have control over itself, the programmer does. And the programmer's boss have control over what to program the robot for, and that is controlled by the state of the business in the rock-throwing robot business, etc.

It is certainly not me who decide where it's a good idea to throw a rock. Or for that matter, it is not me who control when I have the urge to throw a rock, there are very physical reasons for both of these. Therefore, under these conditions, I would argue that the state of the brain is not internally determined. Which means it does not control anything.

I thought I had pretty clearly stated how qualia and the self are physical parts of the brain. The "redness" quale is whatever part of your brain is turned on when you are exposed to red things or think about red things. That part is connected to other parts, constituting a semantic web, and gives feedback to lower layers of perception, explaining how thinking about red things makes you "see" red in your mind. Qualia can be explained by physical brain processes: they are nothing more than subconscious feature extraction from raw stimuli, each feature like "red", "green", "striped", "sweet", "grape", "foot crushed", etc. corresponding to a qualia.

You are mistaken on the nature of qualia. The redness quale is not a part of the brain, it's a propriety of the experience of seeing something red to feel like something. There is nothing physical that can explain qualia. You can't see what things "feel like", which is the very essence of a quale.

Well I've just explained what qualia are in a physical world. If you still want to stick to metaphysical nonsense, you are free to do so, but personally I think that concepts ought to be defined in function of the measurable properties of the objects to which they are widely thought to apply.

A related question :

What is a program ? Is it a chip ? Is it a code ? Is it a function ? What are we refering to when we say the program did X ? the computer is programmed to X ?

 

[chaos]

It may be a number but I defy you to demonstrate to me a physical quantity of zero- you cannot, because it simply does not exist. For example, I don't have a pet lion; I'm defining the number (0) of pet lions that I have based on what I don't have since it's impossible to have a quantity of zero in real life observable quantities.

Zero is a conceptual idea and not an observable quantity (unless defining what you do not have). I hope I explained the thought process there well enough for you math whizes to understand.

Numbers are not physically observable quantities. If you have two lions, you are observing lions, not the number two. Numbers, and mathematical objects in general, are convenient figments of our imagination. It just so happens that they are nice conceptual framework 1) to reason logically about physical phenomena and 2) to communicate our observations of the physical world to others. Number systems were probably originally invented for these purposes. This does not mean that numbers are intrinsically connected with our physical world, and trying to make physical statements about the abstract is an exercise in tomfoolery and semantic-twaddle.

What especially bothers me about your post is that you mix the "does not exist" argument with the notion of "observation." "Does not exist" is philosophy; "observation" is physics. So, I will address your concerns about "observation" using physics. You can certainly observe the absence of physical phenomena. In fact, just by saying "I have 0 lions," you have made an observation about the world, and used a convenient mathematical abstraction to effectively communicate your ideas with the rest of the forum (0). So, by your reasoning, 0 DOES exist; you derived its existence from an observation of physical phenomena.

P.S. Since our universe is believed to be discrete (planck length/planck time), this implies that almost every real number "does not exist"--don't single out zero.

 

[Scoopapa]

Actually, I think it's a fallacious idea. It's not clear what it means for our senses to be deceiving. I would argue that in so far that our sense data is organized in such a way that it allows us to predict and manipulate future sense data (like predicting the presence or absence of a wall right in front of us while walking), it can't possibly be deceiving - it does exactly what it should be doing. If for some reason that ceased to be true, the fact remains that our senses would have served us well for a long while. In order for our senses to be deceiving, you would have to imagine a scenario where every time you stop in front of a wall or wait for the light to be green, you would actually have reaped bigger benefits by running into the wall or causing an accident. It's possible, but it's also ridiculously contrived.

Basically, by taking various actions through time, we continually test whether our senses are reliable or not. So whatever may seem to reveal a deception would have to stack up with a very large number of missed opportunities for deception. Furthermore, it is you who take the leap of faith of thinking that your senses ought to mirror the "real world". Personally I only expect my senses to help me navigate hazards, find and use objects, enjoy books and movies, and so forth. So far, they have been reliable, and that is all I expect. An instance where senses might be deceiving would be dreams, but even in dreams, running into a truck or jumping off a skyscraper will rarely do you good.

The whole point of the asterisk thing was to avoid having people take only that out of my post and argue with it but I guess it didn't work : /. At any rate, you seem to have really missed the point of the concept.

It's not about what reaps more benefits, or anything like that, it's just about the extent to which what we sense mirrors/approximates empirical reality. We're obviously all quite comfortable with how if we run into a wall, we will feel ourselves bump into it, we will hear a bump, and we will see that we haven't moved any further since we hit the wall. That's really not what it's about. The point is, the wall isn't necessarily real. It could be that the wall doesn't exist, and that our senses are deceiving us, in concert, to make it seem like it's there. It could be something like the matrix, we could be brains in a vat, or the truth could be so far removed from anything we know that the physical laws we know and love could be mere constructions. We simply don't know for sure because we can't observe anything about the outside world without using our senses (other than that we exist as conscious entities). I explained that this isn't exactly likely, and surely isn't positively indicated by anything I'm aware of, but in the purest sense you can't deny it. Go back and read my post with this in mind, and you'll see what I was getting at better.

The whole point was that we can't say "consciousness doesn't exist". Consciousness is what we start with, it's the thing of which we are most certain (our own, at least).

In fact, I think : " It "feels like something to exist", therefore I exist " would be more accurate.

"I exist, and I experience things, therefore my experiences exist" is even better. At any rate, "I think, therefore I am" is a famous and commonly understood philosophical view, so I was just using it as a frame of reference.

The brain is not introspective. The brain is only a large mass of interconnected neural cells. It's not any more introspective than a oversized computer chip.

The brain generates a virtual reality from the sensory data it receives from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc. These form the brain's view of reality. Our brain also incorporates an approximation of itself into this virtual reality. In this sense it is introspective. In this sense a computer chip could also be introspective. This is the only physical sense in which something can be said to be introspective. All it takes is that the network in question use an approximation of it's own functioning to determine things about itself / it's interaction with the world. I think what you are trying to say is that the brain is not conscious because it is "only a large mass of interconnected neural cells". As such, I think you really need to respond to the arguments of my previous post before you go pushing the "the brain is just cells it's not really you" argument any further.

 

[Morm]

Numbers are not physically observable quantities...

I can get on board with this part a bit, but honestly I think we're arguing two different things here. I'm saying that if I have three lions, I have three lions. If I have zero lions, the lions that I have do not exist and therefore it's purely a hypothetical situation where I have lion(s), because I have none of them but am able to define the amount I have (0) based on what I do not have (lions). I think you are going at it from a different viewpoint, though. I'm not sure how much more elegantly I can say that to you; you seem to be coming at it from a purely mathematical standpoint (from what I gather) and mine is a more practical (or at least more accessible to me) standpoint.

What especially bothers me about your post is that you mix the "does not exist" argument with the notion of "observation." "Does not exist" is philosophy; "observation" is physics.

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a pretty good quote to point out what I'm getting at- you CAN observe that you don't have something by way of not being able to observe it but understanding that it COULD exist. So the whole idea I'm getting at here is that 0 is a placeholder, much in the same way that negative numbers are: you do not physically have them, nor can you observe them, but they are there conceptually based on what you don't have/owe. I really think apples and oranges is what's going on here.

So, I will address your concerns about "observation" using physics. You can certainly observe the absence of physical phenomena. In fact, just by saying "I have 0 lions," you have made an observation about the world, and used a convenient mathematical abstraction to effectively communicate your ideas with the rest of the forum (0). So, by your reasoning, 0 DOES exist; you derived its existence from an observation of physical phenomena.

0 does not physically exist and that is my entire point.

P.S. Since our universe is believed to be discrete (planck length/planck time), this implies that almost every real number "does not exist"--don't single out zero.

Some people believe in crazy things man, I won't even touch things I don't understand. You mathemagicians and your physics friends confuse me on a VERY regular basis.

 

[billymills]

0 is not a natural number. For the purposes of this argument

3 is a natural number. You can observe 3 objects, you can't observe 0 objects.

Real numbers are the 'default' number set if we are referring to numbers, so if you are trying to argue 0 is not a number you have to define your set.

 

[Morm]

Naturally, natural.

Really, I just don't think in this way and struggle to even meet you number jockeys halfway. Can you spoonfeed it to me more or (as I suspect) might I just be a lost cause?

 

[billymills]

This is grade school stuff (like grade 8 or so), but I can understand it not being all that practical or interesting.

Natural numbers are the numbers 1, 2, 3... that are named such because we can observe them in nature, which I believe is what you were trying to describe.

When I hear numbers, I generally assume real numbers which include 0, negatives, and fractions which also have use in real life but aren't directly observed.

You can claim to have 0 lions. You can claim to have owe someone 3 dollars. You can see part of a pie. But it's fair to say that you don't see the lions, you can't really visualise debt, and you don't see 1/2 of a pie, you see a non-circular pie.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'd still say you see half a pie, considering that the whole pie was roughly twice the size and considered whole. If you can define what makes a pie whole, you can have half a pie.

 

[Objection]

Looking at this discussion on the existence of numbers, I'd be inclined to say that all numbers are adjectives, not nouns. The purpose of numbers is to quantify, which is a form of describing that can only be applied to nouns. Therefore, trying to prove or disprove any number's existence is futile because numbers are not tangible things. You can't detect a number using only your senses.

 

[Jack Jack]

The brain generates a virtual reality from the sensory data it receives from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc. These form the brain's view of reality. Our brain also incorporates an approximation of itself into this virtual reality. In this sense it is introspective. In this sense a computer chip could also be introspective. This is the only physical sense in which something can be said to be introspective. All it takes is that the network in question use an approximation of it's own functioning to determine things about itself / it's interaction with the world. I think what you are trying to say is that the brain is not conscious because it is "only a large mass of interconnected neural cells". As such, I think you really need to respond to the arguments of my previous post before you go pushing the "the brain is just cells it's not really you" argument any further.

The brain does generate the virtual reality for itself, much in the same way the computer does not generate a virtual reality for itself. The computer generate light on a screen, which is a representation of the electrical process in the chips.


"We" cannot be our brain and introspective at the same time. Being introspective means to have access to all the information regarding oneself. On the other hand, maybe I'm the only one here who doesn't have natural access to the electrical tension in my own cells. Maybe I'm the only one who is naturally unaware of the relative quantity of different neurotransmiters in my different synapses. That would explain why some of you are so convinced that they are their brain and why I am so sure that I am not my brain. On the other hand, maybe the brain itself, if it is conscious, has access to all this information. Of course, I would rather be parsimonious in the attribution of sentience. And introspectiveness, which are not exactly the same.

 

[cantab]

It may be a number but I defy you to demonstrate to me a physical quantity of zero

The rest mass of the photon. The velocity of an object stationary with respect to you. The differences in energy between the three phases of water at its triple point. Numbers go beyond simply counting things.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Good o'l mathematics! However they aren't quite the subject of this thread. Actually it's pretty far from it.

 

[billymills]

I'd still say you see half a pie, considering that the whole pie was roughly twice the size and considered whole. If you can define what makes a pie whole, you can have half a pie.

You're drawing in differences when you claim that. It's one thing to claim two objects are similar enough, therefore I have two of them. But to define 'half a pie' you have to know what a pie is, then approximate the ratio between the two. The 'half' does not exist until we decide that a pie should be a whole circle. Similarily, I have 3 dollars less than I had 10 minutes ago implies a comparison. The negative difference does not come into play until I claim to have more money in a prior instance.

Looking at this discussion on the existence of numbers, I'd be inclined to say that all numbers are adjectives, not nouns. The purpose of numbers is to quantify, which is a form of describing that can only be applied to nouns. Therefore, trying to prove or disprove any number's existence is futile because numbers are not tangible things. You can't detect a number using only your senses.

Are all non-tangible things adjectives? Is a dream an adjective? Is a black hole an adjective? The numbers can count tangible objects, but they can also be used to convey size and be used in equations and expressions.

Good o'l mathematics! However they aren't quite the subject of this thread. Actually it's pretty far from it.

Hey, I think you should study alchemy; let's give it a shot, sounds really possible and logical. Also, in FMA people can switch bodies and it's the same in Yu-Gi-Oh GX! Seriously, I am sure your on to something: three reliable sources of unquestionable scientific achievements proved that there is a self and that this self is transferable, measurable, etc.

These being your last two posts I'm not sure you should talk about being off topic. Mathematics came up and we're dealing with them. If you have something to say that is more on topic, then out with it.