(September 29, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You can then count the rock dust, if you like, as a rock, or not a rock. It's the object being counted here who's definition is subjective, not the numbers you use to count with.
How do you know that they break into more than 4? Ah, yes, because 4 is not a subjective concept. 4 diamonds, and 4 french fries are similar in one very important way.
Science doesn't make any claims to perfection, so no problem there.
I don't have to believe in infinity. Again. It is an expression of the continuation of a system for describing things which we all agreed on to make communication of these sorts of concepts possible, and to reduce the element of subjectivity in the conversation to exactly 0. ( see how I used a number there to describe something in a manner which could not be misinterpreted?)
Rhythm, I do not wish to battle with you, but this is an interesting topic. (at least to me, and I hope to understand it better. Thanks for indulging me.)
I only brought up the concept of infinity because there are ways of doing the same kinds of math without it. (and infinity is quite often considered an attribute of god)
That considered, how have you brought our level of subjectivity to 0? Can an irrational concept do such a thing? If so, our physics should be flawless.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain