On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

But there is nothing about the real trees that dictate that the English word 'tree' be used for it. There is nothing that dictates the language used.

We can, given language, define generally what it means to be a tree (a wooden plant with certain other characteristics).

And generally, people agree what it means to be a tree.

But what does it mean to be the number 4? NOT, mind you, what does it mean to have 4 apples. But what actually *is* the number 4?

By the way, there are answers to this question. But there are several, mutually exclusive answers.

You seem to be starting to get it, but then are drifting to epistemology. I’m not talking about epistemology. Would you agree that the number 4 is descriptive, and what it describes, is not changed, whether you and I agree or not?

No. In fact, I deny that specifically. The number 4 comes up in several places, even within mathematics and has different meanings in each.

So even within math, the number is NOT objective. And, if anything, it gets worse as you from the abstract realm of math and into the real world.

---

On the contrary, I have studied these things most of my adult life (and i am 55 years old). You are simply wrong in claiming that no rational person sees the number 4 as subjective.

Let's ask this: are language constructs 'objective' under your definition? It seems that they are, which in turn says that your definition is faulty. Language constructs certainly *shouldn't* be objective, even if they are independent of any particular person.

Language is subjective. The concept of 4 objects is the very opposite of subjective. It is more than three and less than 5. Never any different. Would have the same meaning in all possible languages, all corners of the universe and would have the same meaning in all possible worlds (as in possible world semantics used in modal logic claims). If these facts are true, it follows necessarily that the concept of 4 objects is not just a language construct and has an entirely separate ontological status. 

Well, more than 3 and less than 5 doesn't uniquely determine the number 4: the number 3.5 works also.

But, more of a problem, you haven't defined what 3, 5, 'more' or 'less' mean. Those have meanings in specific situations, but the issue here is whether there is a *general* 'object' that is the number 4 that is objective.