How many numbers are there in existence? Is the number of numbers a number in the same category as the counted numbers?

chei!! Pastor don bring remix come o. ?!?!

viaro:

The reason why I allowed you to be happy with your abstractions is because I'm not given to such cocktails. There are a few questions to be sorted out before you hope to lead me in the stupor of that 'challenge' -

* How exactly is a number self-existent?

* What does it do in itself as affecting excistence?

* How is existence dependent on number/numbers?

* What is 'number' - and which 'number' are you talking about?

* How is this 'number' different from the numbers used in science and philosophy?

* how do you determine mathematically that 'Number' is self-existent?

Let me understand you first in these matters and then we can proceed from there.

^^^ Escapist! Now you want to dodge the clear question bt descending into whirlpools of definitions eh?

No way: that's not very fair Viaro, and i certainly will not be having it.

I do ask you however to make a distinction between numeric figures and numbers in much the same way as a distinction is to be made between the word "yellow" which is only a word produced by languange, and something physical that is actually the hue which is called yellow.

I am sure you will find a way to banter off about that analogy, clear as it is, and thus i request that you reflect on it later.

Because right now the present issue is my challenge, which you are trying to evade through a game of definitions!

I repeat my question and it is clear -

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE, OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER? IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

Answer Viaro! No games, no escapism!

Krayola:

There was a specific number of MOONS. Without the moons, tho, the numbers, IMO, ain't shite!! U dig?!

I hope you appreciate this statement is an absolute concession.

I also hope you see the inescapable contradiction contained in it - for you said - "There was a specific number of moons. . ."

Thus making it clear that numbers existed even when humans didn't. . . for you said - "there was a speific number of moons. . ." In this regard it is irrelevant that you went on to state that without the moons the numbers are nothing. . . i am content that "there was a specific number of moons" just as surely as there were numbers of stars, planets and galaxies.

Your use of the word "specific" is damning.

To tease something out of you, let me give you a poser.

   Eight Moons

   Eight Planets.

What do the above two concepts have in common, which clearly exists whether either of them ceases to exist?

Aha. 8. Self Existent. Immutable.

holy fukn shite. . . is this some kinda prank 

My point is that the numbers don't have an existence independent of what is being quantified. Outside of real tangible things being quantified, they can, IMO, only exist as abstractions, which are products of the mind. U dig?

Holla @ your boy 

Deep Sight:

^^^ Escapist! Now you want to dodge the clear question bt descending into whirlpools of definitions eh?

No, I'm not being an escapist in this one, for which I've had to forego something else to remain online for you.

No way: that's not very fair Viaro, and i certainly will not be having it.

If you're not willing to clarify what you mean, how do we proceed?

I do ask you however to make a distinction between numeric figures and numbers in much the same way as a distinction is to be made between the word "yellow" which is only a word produced by languange, and something physical that is actually the hue which is called yellow.

I'm no mathematician, but I can clearly understand the distinctions between -

             *   numbers,
             *   numerals
             *   numericals
             *   numeric figures,
             *   numerology,
             *   number systems,
             *   number bases
             *   number-crunching

. . .  and several other identities in which numbers could be applied, such as numismatics. Dear sir, I am no mathematician but numbers fascinate me that much as that I should caution you be careful with viaro if you want to perform number-magic. And yes, between yellow and hue, there's not that much a difference between the top and bottom of the corridor, dig?

I am sure you will find a way to banter off about that analogy, clear as it is, and thus i request that you reflect on it later.

Hahahaha!! This guy is calling for an ambulance!

Because right now the present issue is my challenge, which you are trying to evade through a game of definitions!

That was no 'challenge' but a cocktail. .  a sort of toast where dinner is not expected.
I said before, meet me at the bar (Between Numbers and Law) and I'll pay for drinks. There we can sing our drunken songs. .  what say you?

I repeat my question and it is clear -

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE, OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER? IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

Answer: no.
Comment: but what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies? Are you aware that nobody at present knows how many moons all planets have? What specific quantity are you on about, amico mio?

Answer Viaro! No games, no escapism!

Vroom-vroom! I'm here, no engines vamoosing from here.

Answer: No

Are you kidding me?

There was no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along?

That, Viaro, is not just a lie, it beggars history, reason, logic, and the plain fact of the matter that the moons have been there for millions of years, and at various points they were x in number or y in number.

This is a fact, and i will not be so pendantic or trivial as to bother to argue with you or anybody on that point.

Viaro: This statement of yours, that there was no specific quanity of moons around Jupiter before humanity - reveals that you are absolutely willing to retreat into the most shocking absurdities and outright fallacies in order to defend untenable statements, while seeking an elusive game of definitions (which i will not entertain) as a diversionary tactic.

Krayola, was more circumspect in stating the obvious in his response to my query:

Krayola:


There was a specific number of moons. . .

Good grief, Viaro. Please go and reboot and come here with a retraction of that preposterous statement.

viaro:

I'm no mathematician, but I can clearly understand the distinctions between -

             *   numbers,
             *   numerals
             *   numericals
             *   numeric figures,
             *   numerology,
             *   number systems,
             *   number bases
             *   number-crunching

You forgot to mention the mind-numbing mind-numbers.

Deep Sight:

Are you kidding me?

There was no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along?

I was trying to be succinct in my replies so that you don't get swamped by long rejoinders. If you were wondering why my simple answer 'No', then I suppose it would have been helpful to outline specifically every single question there and answer them:

[list]_________________________________[/list]

[list]

Deep Sight:

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE,

No.

Deep Sight:

OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER?

No.

Deep Sight:

IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

No, that would not be the case.
If there were no human minds, it would not be the case that there would also be no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter - therefore my answer: 'No'.
[/list]
[list]_________________________________[/list]

Now, Deep Sight, what was so intriguing about that answer 'No'? Did you carefully weigh the import of what you asked? Huh?

That, Viaro, is not just a lie, it beggars history, reason, logic, and the plain fact of the matter that the moons have been there for millions of years, and at various points they were x in number or y in number.

What reason have you weaved into authentic history in a logical manner that has made good sense about the subject of Number? I don't think anyone is contesting that moons have been around for several millions of years; and it is not at once that all planetray moons were discovered. If you were to ask someone about 45 years ago how many moons were orbiting Uranus, the answer would have been inadequate, because 3 other moons have been recently discovered that brings the total known to date to 21. Does anyone truly know how many moons all planetary bodies have? So what are you in a hurry to launch again into this saga of swinging your scimitar accusingly against me about a 'lie'?

This is a fact, and i will not be so pendantic or trivial as to bother to argue with you or anybody on that point.

No one was arguing away at what you haven't understood. Please take some time to listen to your friends, call for clarification and never assume that you have it all neatly wrapped up.

Viaro: This statement of yours, that there was no specific quanity of moons around Jupiter before humanity reveals that you are willing to retreat into the most shocking absurdities and outright fallacies in order to defend untenable statements, while seeking an elusive game of definitions (which i will not entertain) as a diversionary tactic.

I hope my explanation suffices to call you back to station. You misread my answer simply because you did not understand your own question. So please go softly on the 'lie' detector trail.

Krayola, was more circumspect in stating the obvious in his response to my query:

Good grief, Viaro. Please go and reboot and come here with a retraction of that preposterous statement.

Hehe. .  wonder why this drunk is not willing to come to the bar tonight to booze with me!

Pastor AIO:

You forgot to mention the mind-numbing mind-numbers.

Aaarrrgghh! I didn't want to numb his brains, you know!

Excellent Viaro. I had thought you were saying something else, my bad.

With the above, i am satisfied that like Krayola, you too have now accepted that numbers are self existent, contrary to your earlier postulation.

Thank you for your humility and willingness to learn.

I retire for today.

[size=14pt]If you take off like that, I will hunt you down![/size]
What's happening to the drinks tonight, huh?
You think I stayed online for nuthing? Nada. Zilch.


Hehe. . pal, easy. Just kidding.

However, I don't think you have my position correct, because I do not accept that numbers are self-existent. But I am indeed willing to learn, if you can show me.

Deep Sight:

With the above, i am satisfied that like Krayola, you too have now accepted that numbers are self existent, contrary to your earlier postulation.

All in one read! These guys can split atoms and document it, too! One, a Christian believes God is three in one, the very personification of mystery. The other believes God is incomprehensible. Both would agree, if you ask them, that God has no beginning, and on the limitations of the human mind and its inability to comprehend this and the sheer greatness and reach of God. Yet this is what we get: words lurching about like space missiles, taking on lives of their own, inebriated little warriors, gyrating and skanking in all directions. And when they finally clatter to a stop, this reader sighs and reaches for a handful of Panadol, giddy all over and reeling from a semantic hangover. Wonderful.

Certainly the fundamental point of divergence between a Christian or any religious person and a deist isn’t the form of God but revelations, all of which the deist is either suspicious off or dismisses out of hand. God as a force isn’t anathema to Christianity. In fact it was from them I first learnt as a kid that God is omnipresent, a force present everywhere. (If God is a force, that would make God It, right? I am comfortable referring to God as Him, though.) Whereas the JWs say God is a spirit person who personally sits on a throne somewhere. And our own cerebral PastorAIO has been writing things that can mean: “God is neither a spirit nor a force. You can’t describe God as great or perfect, since these terms are relative,” which Deep Sight strongly disagrees with. You have the Rosicrucians who say “you can’t separate God from his creation”.  Now I do not know enough to ascertain which of these views of the perfect and incomprehensible God is “right”. But not knowing the form or size of God does not stand in the way of recognising his existence. Thank you.

MyJoe:

But not knowing the form or size of God does not stand in the way of recognising his existence. Thank you.

Applause.

MyJoe:

But not knowing the form or size of God does not stand in the way of recognising his existence. Thank you.

viaro:

Applause.

Really? Applause? You accept this, yes? So why then did you waste my energy arguing that i cannot argue the existence of God independent of the nature of God. Or were you arguing then just for the heck of arguing? I do not appreciate that Viaro, i have a tilt for the serious-minded.

Amico mio, I did not intend to waste anyone's time. Perhaps you and I were suffering from a very queer infection of miscommunication. . or our discussion just got lost somewhere until it gave MyJoe the urge to reach out for his aspirins. Either way, I could go back and show you where it all spiralled and snowballed; or I could just leave it there and hang my head with a benign smile. . . for thy sake.

viaro:


However, I don't think you have my position correct, because I do not accept that numbers are self-existent.

You are contradicting yourself, and i have found in our recent debates that this always happens whenever we debate.

Here is your concession -

I asked -

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE, OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER? IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

And you responded  saying "No."

Thus acceding to the existence of the abstract idea of quantities (which is what numbers are) independent from our own language numerals.

Case closed, Viaro.

We should move on to see how an understanding of that fact leads us to an understanding of "God".

Deep Sight:

You are contradicting yourself, and i have found in our recent debates that this always happens whenever we debate.

I'm willing to acknowledge any contradcitions only on grounds that you show it precisely. As far as that question was concerned, my answer 'No' was consistent, not a tot different than when I broke the questions down in bits and answered likewise.

I don't remember making any argument for or against abstract ideas or quantities. In the past it was clear that I was willing to let you hold any abstractions that make you happy even though they do not fit into reality such as many people understand and work with. My concern in this thread about your abstractions, however, is the way you seemed to have stretched it to apply to far reaching consequences that becloud the sense of what you were arguing.

But even at that, I wondered how you could establish the case about what 'number' in itself actually is - "what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?", remember?

We can move on beyond this. I just couldn't let the misconception above in your reply to pass unnoticed.

As customary, you have responded with something that amounts to nothing and is entirely diversionary in its nature.

Viaro, i fear i am beginning to see through you: you offer verbosity in lieu of strong logic, and seek to escape thereby.

You should have noticed i prefer to chisel out rationalizations.

Nothing in the post above addresses the contradiction i pointed out. Rather you seek again to escape by asking me about the definition of "numbers"? ? ?

I will not indulge you: if you need a definition please consult a dictionary.

What are numbers, if not abstract ideas of quantities. You have accepted that such exist whether or not humans are there. (The Jupiter Example). Thus giving a lie toi your earlier statement that "numbers are a construct of the human mind." Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

_{Are you really unable to grasp that the only thing that's a construct of the human mind are numerals - the language via which WE apprehend numbers?}

If you deny that it is a brazen and glaring contradiction: then controvert the above in rational terms, and not with empty and long words please.

Deep Sight, I was being genial and did not want to drag on and on - it wears us out and bores others. If you want strong logic, please state your case. As for the 'contradiction', I answered that my answer remains 'No' to those questions - and earlier you acquisced that all was well. To whip it up again was actually baffling, and if you want me to go through all that again, all well and good.

Now this:

Deep Sight:

Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

You tried to put words in my mouth and I have maintained many times that I do not see 'numbers' as self-existent. That was why I asked my question: 'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?' You evaded that by asking me to consult a dictionary. What game are you up to here? Just asserting things does not help your discussions - and I'm glad it's not just viaro who sees that recurring decimal in your posts.

Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.
But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. [size=14pt]NO[/size]!

Your problem here seems to be that you hope everyone would just answer yea to your abstractions - whether they understand or not - and then if they don't, they must be 'lying'. What is happening to my dear friend?

Please clam down, read and listen to your friends. They know why they are asking questions and querying your larger-than-size assertions about self-existent abstractions. They (and I) don't see how you have establish your case, so where is the 'lie'?

viaro:

That was why I asked my question: 'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?' You evaded that by asking me to consult a dictionary. What game are you up to here?

Did you not note that i still could not resist sneaking in the definition for you? Here -

Deep Sight:


What are numbers, if not abstract ideas of quantities.

And then showing you exactly where the contradiction lies -

Deep Sight:


You have accepted that such exist whether or not humans are there. (The Jupiter Example). Thus giving a lie toi your earlier statement that "numbers are a construct of the human mind." Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

In case you miss it, as i know you deliberately will, let me break it down further: I have called numbers abstract ideas of quantities. You have stated that such exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus you have stated that numbers exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus self-existent.

Do i have to baby-sit you any further into seeing the glaring contradiction in turning around to deny the self-existence of numbers? ? ?

Deep Sight:

You have stated that such exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus you have stated that numbers exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus self-existent.

Pardon my barging in to your very interesting and educative discourse. With reference to the bolded part can i add my humble perspective.

I doubt that anybody will be bold enough to say that they know the answer to the question of whether 'numbers' exist irrespective of the human mind. To be able to answer that question one has to be able to say with authority that they understand what 'the human mind' is. Who really knows what it is? Who knows what consciousness is?

Is the 'mind' something unique to each individual or is it part of a universal entity? Does consciousness exist irrespective of the limitations of biology or is it integral to biology? Who can answer that with authority?

So back to the question of numbers. No body has enough information to be able to say whether they exist because of us. Or irrespective of us. That's my take.

Haha. Deepsight, the thing is that we love your ideas, but u keep trying to force things down our throats as factual. If u simply state that your argument is based on an "assumption of such and such", we will readily accept and move on to the next step. . . Because we all want to see where all this is headed. But u keep trying to assert all these abstract ideas that have been debated for centuries as factual. That just ain't gonna fly. . . We're not dummies. Just quit trying to insist that we somehow subconsciously agree with your assertions. We don't. But we are willIng to accept them if u agree they are just assumptions. . . I think that is a reasonable compromise . . . Abi?

^^^beneli, you didn't barge in. Welcome anytime, and thanks for that fresh twist to the whole affair.

Deep Sight:

Did you not note that i still could not resist sneaking in the definition for you? Here -

What are numbers, if not abstract ideas of quantities

Please. Let me ask my question again:

       'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?'

Even though I'm no Mathematician, I understand what numbers are. You can define a number on its own from any context you choose - but at the end of the day, what do you mean by 'number' when talking about the 'existence of the universe and planetary bodies'? If you check how so many times i repeated that question, you see that I was not standing the question alone in the cold.

And then showing you exactly where the contradiction lies -

You have accepted that such exist whether or not humans are there. (The Jupiter Example). Thus giving a lie toi your earlier statement that "numbers are a construct of the human mind." Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

Please again. Where did I accept that numbers are SELF-EXISTENT? Please, without putting words in my mouth, share with me and let me shut up for once. Show me where viaro 'accepted' that numbers are 'self-existent', or please just shut up.

Even more recently I had to make things as easy for you by stating my position:

      Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.

     But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. [size=14pt]NO[/size]!

Even though there are indeed abstract things, are these abstractions 'self-existent' by default? Is 'abstract' synonymous with 'self-existence'? If one says they acknowledge a million and one abstract things (I could list so many of them), that does not mean they are saying or 'accepting' that those abstract things are ipso facto "self=existent". I did not accept that 'number' is self-existent, and that is why I have again and again asked that you simply show me how they could be self-existent and uncreated - just show me how they have existed for all eternity unlike the universe that was created at some point. That's all, not the hasty manhunt to see 'lies' in viaro's queries.

In case you miss it, as i know you deliberately will, let me break it down further: I have called numbers abstract ideas of quantities. You have stated that such exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus you have stated that numbers exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus self-existent.

I did not accept anywhere that numbers are self-existent. Where I did, please show me and viaro would have to shut the f.ck up - that simple.

Do i have to baby-sit you any further into seeing the glaring contradiction in turning around to deny the self-existence of numbers? ? ?

I wasn't being nannied at all, hehehe. I just want you to show me where I actually made that blunder of arrogating slef-existence to 'number' such that in relation to the created Universe, those abstractions have been in existence for all eternity. Please show me.

beneli:

I doubt that anybody will be bold enough to say that they know the answer to the question of whether 'numbers' exist irrespective of the human mind. To be able to answer that question one has to be able to say with authority that they understand what 'the human mind' is. Who really knows what it is? Who knows what consciousness is?

Is the 'mind' something unique to each individual or is it part of a universal entity? Does consciousness exist irrespective of the limitations of biology or is it integral to biology? Who can answer that with authority?

So back to the question of numbers. No body has enough information to be able to say whether they exist because of us. Or irrespective of us. That's my take.

My thoughts.

how were you aware, God exists is different from all the other gods put forward by religions.

viaro:




Please. Let me ask my question again:

       'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?'

Even though I'm no Mathematician, I understand what numbers are. You can define a number on its own from any context you choose - but at the end of the day, what do you mean by 'number' when talking about the 'existence of the universe and planetary bodies'? If you check how so many times i repeated that question, you see that I was not standing the question alone in the cold.


Please again. Where did I accept that numbers are SELF-EXISTENT? Please, without putting words in my mouth, share with me and let me shut up for once. Show me where viaro 'accepted' that numbers are 'self-existent', or please just shut up.

Even more recently I had to make things as easy for you by stating my position:

      Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.

     But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. [size=14pt]NO[/size]!

Even though there are indeed abstract things, are these abstractions 'self-existent' by default? Is 'abstract' synonymous with 'self-existence'? If one says they acknowledge a million and one abstract things (I could list so many of them), that does not mean they are saying or 'accepting' that those abstract things are ipso facto "self=existent". I did not accept that 'number' is self-existent, and that is why I have again and again asked that you simply show me how they could be self-existent and uncreated - just show me how they have existed for all eternity unlike the universe that was created at some point. That's all, not the hasty manhunt to see 'lies' in viaro's queries.

I did not accept anywhere that numbers are self-existent. Where I did, please show me and viaro would have to shut the f.ck up - that simple.

I wasn't being nannied at all, hehehe. I just want you to show me where I actually made that blunder of arrogating slef-existence to 'number' such that in relation to the created Universe, those abstractions have been in existence for all eternity. Please show me.

This is frankly hilarious. I have never had to baby-sit any person on this forum so painstakingly through his very own blunders.

At this point i am wondering if grammar or commonsense are the problems. Or both.

I will do this only one last time, and i will not revert on this question of numbers again, whatever will be your response, if any.

This will be the fourth time i am pointing out to you the contradiction in plain English.

What is a number - you asked. A number is an abstract idea of a quantity.

Did such exist as per the number of moons around Jupiter before humanity came along? You answered in the affirmative.

Remember my question: i stated: was there a specific quantity of moons around Jupiter. . . you confirmed that there was. You stated in response to me that that specific quantity would not change even if humanity were to go extinct. Thus, the specific quanity is there, regardless of humanity.

This flies against your assertion that "numbers are a construct of the human mind." Because if they are a construct of the human mind, why are there x number of moons around Jupiter whether humanity is there to articulate it or not - which you accepted.

Need i say more in showing you your contradiction? Christ! Good Grief!! I had supposed a much more advanced intellect than that which you offer here, Viaro! Grossly dissapointed. Perhaps it must be that you see the obvious point but are too egoistic to admit it. But admit it you should, because your contradiction is so plain that your denials are making you appear as devoid of even kindergarten understanding of either grammar or commonsense in terms of what you have written yourself. I have no doubt that you will not hesitate to revert after this clear explanation of your contradiction by asking me to show you the contradiction yet again: I will not.

This also convinces me that you do not know the elementary difference between numbers and numerals, which you claimed to know, and which any kindergarten pupil can school you on.

Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.

     But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. NO!

Who ever asked you to deify any abstraction?

Good grief.

We are running around in circles as regards this matter of numbers: there is much more to the God discourse than this, for this reason, i leave the issue here resolutely and will not return to it after this post.

However, for the sake of the objective observer, and not for your sake, i will just leave the posts that are evidence of the contradiction i speak about:

You stated -

viaro:

As a subscript, please note that numbers are not self-existent - they are part of the invented tools that man employs in researches.

Thus stating numbers to be "invented tools" of man -

And i asked -

Deep Sight:

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE, OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER? IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

To which you responded -

Answer: No

Thereby accepting that numbers exist regardless of man.

Deep Sight,

I don't see the contradiction anywhere in what I have shared with you. There's no need for me to go into long or detailed response to make any point, in as much as you are still on the same page and saying nothing new. Should there have been anything to show where I "accepted" that number is self-existent, my excitement in clicking on this thread to read your response would have been worth it. That I'm disappointed is an understatement. Do I make a renewed request of the same thing:

I did not accept anywhere that numbers are self-existent. Where I did, please show me and viaro would have to shut the f.ck up - that simple.

If you can't show it, what's the fuss all about?

language and numbers are tools for representation of facts. there are 12 moons around Jupiter, yes thats a fact on the quantity of moons around Jupiter, language is an invention of man.