₦airaland Forum

Kay17 - I still await your response to the below.

Yours patiently;

DS.

Deep Sight:
Kay 17 - In many ways you remind me of the gentleman on this forum who goes about under the pseudonym - "Atheists."

That gentleman is the least engaaging of all the "Atheists" on this forum.

I will like to know what you are in fact -

1. An atheist

2. An agnostic

In doing so please answer for me these questions -

1. What is Atheism?

2. What is agnosticism?

3. What do these mean to you in your personal life?

Please do not consult a dictionary or wikipedia, just answer off the top of your head. Thanks.

Kay 17 - In many ways you remind me of the gentleman on this forum who goes about under the pseudonym - "Atheists."

That gentleman is the least engaaging of all the "Atheists" on this forum.

I will like to know what you are in fact -

  1. An atheist

  2. An agnostic

In doing so please answer for me these questions -

  1. What is Atheism?

  2. What is agnosticism?

  3. What do these mean to you in your personal life?

Please do not consult a dictionary or wikipedia, just answer off the top of your head. Thanks.

^^^ David, i am not sure it is fair to say that it is completely innacurate. Perhaps we should say that it has only approximate results, and may often deliver errors in significant margins. But that is not to say it is altogether useless and cannot give a ball-park idea.

Mazaje -

The Garden of Eden is not a mythical place.

But it never existed on this earth. It existed, and exists, within the primordial spiritual realm, the spiritual dimension which is the original home of the human spirit.

Any claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is not only preposterous but uneducated in the extreme.

Olaadegbu - The bible does not propound this. The genealogy of man is the genealogy of man, not of the earth.

Man is actually a very late arriver on this planet.

On an imaginary age scale of 1 - 100, man appears on the scene when the earth is over 99 years old.

Bear in mind also that you said -

The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole.

And assuming x and y to be at opposite far reaches of the universe, please consider if it can be rightly said that the "folding" of spacetime required to acheive a shortcut between the two will be a "small movement" only, and will not remodel the universe. Can it be said that a "small part" only of the universe will be experiencing the said phenomena?

Thanks again.

Hi Viaro, how's your day going?

Now take a look at the rough image i have created below.

Where -

T = Spacetime

Y, X, A, B = Galaxies

Z = Outside spacetime.

Can you kindly take sometime and tinker with (edit) this image to show how it might appear when T is "folded" to create a shortcut between X and Y, through a wormhole, perhaps.

When you do, this, please be so kind as to indicate if A and B may have moved within spacetime, and their new locations.

I think this excercise will help elucidate my point.

Thanks for the trouble.

Well that may explain his caustic tongue!

Don't be decieved. He's just playing pranks. Tudor's a guy.

@ Tudor/ Mazaje - Yuck! You guys are sick!

^^^ Which is ridiculous because the account in Genesis 1 & 2 leaves room for the passage of millions of years before the creation of Adam.

So why should anybody use the genealogy of man to arrive at the age of the earth?

Is man the earth? How clever is that now? ? ?

I hope you are aware that nowhere in the Bible is the suggestion contained that the earth is 6000 years old only.

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.

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? ? ?

Thanks Viaro, but I am not sure we are on the same page yet.

The Green part (green linear lines) of the image represents the fabric of space-time. It is that Green Part that the words "Space outside of wormhole" appear on.

That greenery is teh spacetime fabric. The black part i marked "Z" is not within spacetime. Please try to go back to the image carefully again.

Observe the line along which the light ray is indicated to have to travel, if movement is not through the wormhole. It is traveling a line within spacetime. Thus it is clear that Z is not within spacetime. At all events we should begin to wonder what it means to "fold" spacetime, because i believe that locked in that word may be the secret to understanding the nature of "Z."

The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'.

"Space outside wormhole is not Z!" Wwe do know that 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself but Z is outside the green spacetime fabric altogether!. My thoughts are further firmed up when we reflect that cosmic bodies lie within the spacetime fabric as i indicated in purple x marks. They do not lie in "Z."

This point must be sealed if we for example pick a sheet of paper or a piece of cloth. If you will fold it, you will recognize immediately what i am talking about. This, i recognize, is a vastly limited example only.

The second question first: the 'cosmos' is not distorted by any 'folding' of spacetime.

I have serious problems with this, and i think i will have to do a diagram to force the point. I will be right back.

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.

wirinet:
Deep Sight, this is where i vehemently disagree with you. Fidelity to a single spouse is a positive law in some societies but it is a highly unnatural law.

Let me explain,
Studies had shown that our basic natural instinct is polygamy. Even studies of our closest surviving evolutionary relative - the Gorilla had shown that it is unnatural for a male Gorilla to practice monogamy. You have a dominant male controlling a harem of females. Just as it is with the Gorilla, it is part of our Natural Male ego and pride to posses a harem of ladies and that was why all powerful kings in antiquity had tens if not hundreds of wives - and there was nothing unnatural about it. Besides i do not know a religion that expressly ban polygamy.

But us humans (the renaissance Europeans) found out that conflicts arising from multiple wives and fights among men (especially powerful ones) were retrogressing development of such societies. So they realized that promulgating Fidelity to a single spouse would go a long way into easing a lot of conflicts within such societies, coupled with a more stable atmosphere for children to develop. So fidelity was made a Positive law.

But monogamy in some society is not practicable. The Arabs during Mohammad times were always at war, war with each other and war with invaders, so it could be understood that their male population must have been highly depleted. Now promulgating a degree banning polygamy was not feasible, so you can understand the context into which Mohammad made the Law that allows a man to marry up to 4 wives.

Now even the western world is still grappling with its monogamy laws because it is unnatural to the male specie of homo sapiens. You will see a man marry one wive but keep numerous mistresses. At times also a man will easily divorce when he finds his legal wife sexually unattractive in order to be free to have sex with another.

Yes sexual infidelity in marriage according to western laws is a crime and you can go to jail for it. Even in our laws they is a crime of Adultery which is punishable with up to a maximum of five years ( i think), but i do not think the law had been tested yet. It would be funny for a woman to take her husband to court for sleeping with another woman and charging him for adultery.

I am not in support of polygamy in today's societies but tell you monogamy is positive but unnatural law.

Tell me what you think

Thanks, i accept, but note that i had already conceded that its a controversial area and that people would insist that man is naturally polygamous -

Deep Sight:
It is my personal view that fidelity is a natural law on account of the pain and disturbance that infidelity evidently brings to people. However i admit that this is a possibly controversial area, because many people will insist that it is equally natural for males to have more than one partner.

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".

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.

Viaro - I don't think you were fair to No2Atheism. I think his queries wre very polite and honest and direct, and even if you may have said x or y before it wouldn't have hurt to respond to him, seeing as he was so terribly polite in making his requests.

Instead you jibed him left, right and centre and he left quietly without a fuss.

Now you can see the purple x marks? Those marks represent galaxies and cosmic bodies within the space-time fabric. Confirm it is correct for me to suppose that the spacetime realm contains cosmic bodies as i have indicated in the image above.

The Yellow arrow on the left of the image is pointing towards an empty place where the upper part of the folded fabric would have been lying before it was folded. Now that part would have been to the left of the image as the arrow points. Are you with me thus far?

But when the fabric is folded, we have that part moving upwards and coming above the lower part of the fabric. You will see i have tagged the upper part "Y" and the lower part "X".

Now the Y portion in the process of the folding has moved a major shift to from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to its present place above X. In so doing, i must assume that it necessarily moves with all the cosmic bodies lying within it indicated as small purple x marks.

I hope you can apprehend now what i am saying: that the folding must perforce entail a major cosmic realignment as the cosmic bodies within Y would have moved from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to the current position of Y. Note for emphasis that whereas the cosmic bodies within Y would previously have been to the left of the X area, they are now above it. Can you conceptualize what sort of movement of the cosmos is being talked about here?

What must occur during the said "folding?" What distortions of "spacetime" and the cosmos must be involved in this?

This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects.

But assuming that there were none. Are you suggesting to me that for every single wormhole to be created, this massive cosmic realignment with its attendant effects must take place?

Also there are other questions -

1. What is the "empty" space marked as "Z" in the image? I have used red spots to indicate the other empty areas. These are supposedly outside the fabric of spacetime. But DO NOT TELL ME THAT SUCH "EMPTY SPACES" ARE NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS THROUGH THAT VERY "EMPTY SPACE" THAT THE WORMHOLE IS FORMED BETWEEN Y AND X!

2. Z is clearly what the "universe" is expanding into. I propose that Z is infinite and self existent space. Reason being that it is boundless (as much as we can conceive) and constitutes a trajectory openness in all directions which exists even if there were no "spacetime" (the fabric in the image). What do you say to this?

Z is thus unlimited, and together with eternity inherent in it (given that it has no time, or is timeless: thus is infinite time) is the start point ffor understanding the oneness of infinity which i moon on and on about. I know this is crap for you, and i state it beforehand so that you needn't lash me.

Am i making some sense now?

Hi Viaro.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. You are going to have to be patient with me on this one. I accept already perhaps i am the one with the flawed understanding and i am willing to be disabused of my misapprehensions if any.

I thought abit about our last exchange above and i decided that words alone cannot pass accross the concern i have in mind. Please have a look at the image below: i have inserted some markers which i intend to use to discuss -

Jesoul - So what do you think is meant by the following scripture:

Acts 10:34 - 35: "Of a truth, i perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that fears him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him"

When taken together with the scripture where Jesus says that many would call out to him, espousing their faith in him and the miracles they worked in his name, and that he would reject them, you must agree that there is a very strong inference that all the faith in the world is meaningless, without "goodness" or "righteousness" of heart.

Whereas it is apparent from the Acts quote that people of different cultures and religions ("in every nation" who fear God and "work righteousness" will be acceptable to him.

I agree that we cannot be perfect. I think that a good volition is what is required. I do not, and will never believe that God will regard the works of Mahatma Ghandi or Mother Theresa as "filthy rags."

What do you say?

viaro:
I think you let your hatred for Jesus Christ quite simply shows up many times and you can't contain or resist the urge to show it.

Please o! Please please please please please let me be clear on this:

I DO NOT HATE JESUS OF NAZARETH. I LOVE HIM AND I REGARD HIM AS ONE OF THE GREATEST MEN TO HAVE EVER LIVED, IF NOT THE GREATEST.

I simply believe that mankind is given to hero worship and the deification of leaders. It abounds throughout history that leaders, especially spiritual leaders, are presumed to be deities, and the critical eye can very easily see that this is what happened to poor Jesus of Nazareth as well. People turned him into God.

I think the Council of Nicea which was set up to address the Arian heresy entrenched it as church dogma.

The reason people will always get such fury and bitterness from me on the question of Jesus is the fact that i passionately hate attempts to deify human beings, or denigrate the greatness of God by equating any human being with him. I think its the greatest heresy, and i am happy to park my boat with the muslims on that score. There are also other misconceptions regarding Jesus that i believe are fatal to the true christianity that he preached. One such is the idea of remission of sins through the death on the cross.

Hi Viaro.

Thank you for your response. It was helpful, but my fears and concerns still remain.

I understand what space is said to refer to. I also have some understanding (limited of course) of what time is said to refer to.

I appreciate the connection between these two, and thus the term "spacetime continuum."

My concerns are -

1. Is Spacetime actually a "fabric" as described by scientists? I can accede to space as being imbued with properties which may lend credence to its description as a "fabric," and although i accept that space and time have a relationship i cannot accept that time is in anywise is a "fabric" or together with space constitutes a fabric of any description. I would be more comfortable describing space as imbued with certain qualities of a fabric and describing time as an infinite continuum. This is because I am certain that time is absolutely intangible.

Note that the description of spacetime as a fabric by scientists is the factor that leaves the room open for time travel - as a fabric can be waded through - forwards or backwards, upwards or downwards. If time is strictly an intangible continuum only (which is my take) then although it may be possible to see the past through transmission of images embedded in light, it will not be possible to "go" there physically in anywise.

2. Is spacetime created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang? I positively deny that it is: and i am aware that in saying this i am swimming against the tide of global scientific thinking. I perceive space and time as infinite, self existent factors which could not be said to come into existence at any point.

In this respect if indeed spacetime was created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang, i ask - INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING? INTO WHAT HAS IT BEEN EXPANDING ALL THIS WHILE?

In my humble view, it is expanding into infinite, self-existent space. This runs contrary to the scientific supposition that space is a fabric created by the big bang and is the substance of this universe.

3. You stated that folding space-time would not result in the cataclysm that i suggested. Please look again at the picture i posted above and reflect on these -

a. When you fold the fabric, will there not be corresponding movement of the cosmic bodies contained within the fabric?

b. Will such movement not represent a major shift in universal alignment and this trigger the cataclysm i suggested?

c. If the folding will not result in the movement of cosmic bodies i imagined, then clearly, such cosmic bodies will be left in the lurch, with no "spacetime" within which to remain, as the fabric would have shifted away from the locus of such bodies, and such bodies would evaporate, or fall away into outer nothingness, as it were.

In my view the latter is rather implausible, and i would stick with the former - theoretically - that such a "folding" will result in movement of cosmic bodies and that could be apocalyptic.

However that is supposing spacetime to be foldable in the manner suggested. I am not certain, and being of limited human knowledge, i cannot say if that is workable.

Let me make one clarification - the foregoing does not mean that i discard the existence of wormholes. I think there will be all sorts of holes in the universe, permitting all manner of transitory movements across galaxies and outer reaches; but i do not see how that can be by "folding" spacetime in the manner suggested - my reasons are as above.

Maybe i am the one being limited in my thinking? Please help.

viaro:
I would like to know how any being could claim to be the Alpha and Omega when he is not so

Lol. Easy. Olumba Olumba Obu, Guru Maharaji, and many other quacks have claimed to be God, the alpha and omega. Are they God?

So Viaro, for you and Noetic, a mere assertion by that first century nomadic carpenter amounts to proof that he is the primordial and divine first cause and creator of all existence?

I'm sorry, but i have no words to describe how pedestrian that is. Psycotic, actually.

As per -

Viaro - What is spacetime? I have serious problems with the ideas circulating regarding that "fabric."

I was astounded to watch on Nat Geo the other day that Time Travel may be possible if we can fold spacetime and thus pass through wormholes.

My astonishment arose not from the proposition regarding wormholes but the proposition regarding "folding" spacetime as shown below.

It surprised me that any scientost would miss the fact that such a folding must perforce result, if it were possible at all, in the total dismemberment of the universe as it is known.

What exactly is spacetime? Because i hold a different personal view that space and time are infinite, intangible, self existent, and not created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang.

Wwhere is Kag? She made a most preposterous statement sometime ago - that time may have began after the inflation of space. I am sure she missed her own use of the word "after" which connotes already existing and self-xistent time. That statement was a contradiction i cannot get over till date, but she seems to have fled from this forum.

Please Viaro, help me out on spacetime. Thanks.

From Wikipedia -

[size=16pt]Wormhole[/size]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Einstein-Rosen Bridge" redirects here. For the album, see Einstein-Rosen Bridge (EP).

Analogy to a wormhole in a curved 2-D space (see Embedding Diagram)
Wormhole: Seen from an observer’s perspective, crossing the event horizon of a Schwarzschild wormhole, which is similar to a Schwarzschild black hole, but with the singularity replaced, by an unstable path to a white hole, in another universe. The observer originates from the right, and another universe becomes visible in the center of the wormhole’s shadow once the horizon is crossed; however, this new region is unreachable in the case of a Schwarzschild wormhole, as the bridge, between the black hole and the white hole, always collapses before the observer has time to cross it. See White Holes and Wormholes for a technical discussion and animation of what an observer sees when falling into a Schwarzschild wormhole.In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is, fundamentally, a 'shortcut' through space and time. Simply, spacetime is a two-dimensional (2-D) surface that, when 'folded' over, allows the formation of a wormhole bridge. A wormhole has at least two mouths that are connected via a throat or tube. If the wormhole is traversable, then matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other via the throat. There is no observational evidence for wormholes, and, although wormholes are valid solutions in general relativity, this is only true if exotic matter can be used to stabilize them. Even if the wormhole is stabilized, even a slight fluctuation in space would collapse it. If such exotic matter — that is, matter with negative mass — does not exist, all wormhole-containing solutions to Einstein’s field equations are vacuum solutions, which require an impossible vacuum, free of all matter and energy.

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.

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.

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.

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!