i see multiple hellthreads today, but none of them have really gone inferno like usual.

feels like maybe we should drag in some new blood from somewhere else to stir up some shit-soup.

@bitterblossom it's already so tiring. no need to make it worse

@grumpy and i literally just read you posting that you liked having freaks around and hellthreads for the entertainment factor :[

@bitterblossom i like having freaks

hellthreads are fun if they're avout anything other than pedophilia. im getting sick of the topic

@grumpy shake things up then.

give us a proper new topic to flame over.

no pedos, no ukraine, no russia, no murika. something fresh and spicy.

@bitterblossom @grumpy

platonism vs nominalism

ARE NUMBERS "REAL" @kallisti @amerika @tarperfume @cummies

@bitterblossom @amerika @cummies @grumpy @kallisti @tarperfume

as a base premise:

> Most nominalists have held that only physical particulars in space and time are real, and that universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to particular things.[4] However, some versions of nominalism hold that some particulars are abstract entities (e.g., numbers), while others are concrete entities – entities that do exist in space and time (e.g., pillars, snakes, bananas).

> Nominalism is primarily a position on the problem of universals. It is opposed to realist philosophies, such as Platonic realism, which assert that universals do exist over and above particulars, and to the hylomorphic substance theory of Aristotle, which asserts that universals are immanently real within them. However, the name "nominalism" emerged from debates in medieval philosophy with Roscellinus.

so, would you say that your idea of a given number, a given mathematical formula is pointing to /something/ /real/ that is effectively identical to my idea of that same given number?

@H3K473 @doorroo

@rats @doorroo @grumpy @amerika @H3K473 @kallisti @tarperfume @cummies

numbers aren't real.
mathematics is real.
reality obeys certain "laws" of mathematics, and the reality we comprehend and witness exists solely through those laws (which we do not yet comprehensively understand).
numbers are the imaginary medium through which we explore and define relevant equations and values, just as a ruler is an imaginary unit of measurement created to compare and understand values of distance.

time is a derived unit of measurement that is not static and has been proven to change over great distances; at its core, time itself is only a comparison of "this" being "here" and "then" being "there"; that is, the movement of particles/energy.

@bitterblossom @doorroo @grumpy @amerika @H3K473 @rats @tarperfume @cummies what is real?

mathematics is simply a codified system that happens to line up with reality. when reality disproves it, mathematics changes

@kallisti @bitterblossom @grumpy @amerika @H3K473 @rats @tarperfume @cummies imo the logic and system itself is real, real doesn't necessarily mean true. same way lies and misconceptions are real, not tangibly or truly real but real insofar as they exist enough to be acknowledged

@doorroo @bitterblossom @grumpy @amerika @H3K473 @rats @tarperfume @cummies i do not consider concepts to be real at the same level as the body i have now. i regard them to be in their own dimension of reality; stirner-esque spirits/spooks

@kallisti @doorroo @H3K473 @amerika @bitterblossom @cummies @grumpy @tarperfume

i had a fun conversation with a friend once where my friend was like "is spiderman real"

"of course, if i say spiderman you know exactly what i'm talking about. if someone wrote a story about spiderman, you'd have some sense of whether or not he was acting 'in character'. spiderman exerts a cultural force onto our world"

and i was saying that to kinda be a contrarian but thinking along that way left me extremely confused what it even means for something to be 'real', anyway. what's the consequence of whether or not numbers are 'real'? what is actually at /stake/?

@rats @grumpy @bitterblossom @kallisti @H3K473 @doorroo @cummies @tarperfume

Are numbers real?

They are shared tokens we use to describe reality.

Accuracy varies.

@amerika @rats @grumpy @bitterblossom @H3K473 @doorroo @cummies @tarperfume ya this is what i agree with

@amerika @H3K473 @bitterblossom @cummies @doorroo @grumpy @rats @tarperfume this is my view of language as a whole. its like, pointers

@kallisti @grumpy @bitterblossom @H3K473 @doorroo @cummies @rats @tarperfume

Or gestures, or even a painting.

None of the great paintings are literal.

They are not the objects they represent ("the map is not the territory," Houellebecq interpretation).

@amerika @grumpy @bitterblossom @H3K473 @doorroo @cummies @rats @tarperfume yes; the map is not the territory is a big thing i insist on. the way that can be named is not the eternal way

@kallisti @grumpy @bitterblossom @H3K473 @doorroo @cummies @rats @tarperfume

This is my most recent split with religion.

Spirituality is something sensed. The minute you write it down, people are worshiping symbols and not the reality that you sensed.

@amerika @kallisti @grumpy @bitterblossom @H3K473 @cummies @rats @tarperfume agreed. my gripe with religion - same as my gripe with standardised academia - is it tends to undermine personal revelation in favour of doctrinal work, the 'word' as written instead of what the word means or how you find & perceive that word. faiths with an oral tradition didn't have as much of an issue with this, they treated it as thoughtcraft, very innate

@doorroo @grumpy @bitterblossom @kallisti @tarperfume @rats @amerika @H3K473 @cummies I told a door to door JW that the word changes over time, the face they made...they informed me it DID NOT and I just smiled and said ok