That's the "level of dignity" that Foundations of Mathematics has. Now whose "fault" is that? Do professional mathematicians need to take the blame here, yes or no? — Arcane Sandwich

Only those relative few who have an interest in Foundations. :roll:

Are you saying you have the final word on the nature of existence? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, now give me my briefcase full of money.

Are you saying that the matter of the ontology of existence has been settled? — Harry Hindu

Of course, I've just settled it. Glad that I could help. Now, about that briefcase.

I don't think so — Harry Hindu

You're free to think whatever you want, just as much as I am. Or are you now going to tell me that you don't believe in basic human rights?

Not every idea is a fiction. Everything is a process. Non-fictional ideas "are just brain processes too". The difference is their relationship with the world, and what kinds of things you can accomplish by implementing them. Do you successfully get your starship to Mars, do you dress up in a way that others successfully recognize you as Santa Claus? — Harry Hindu

I don't believe in process ontology, despite what Whitehead says. With a name like that, you might as well call him Crackhead.

Does your idea of how to play chess permit you to play chess? Does it not have a causal effect on whether you get disqualified from the chess match or not? — Harry Hindu

Nothing of that has anything to do with numbers. Why is this such a controversial idea to you, that you feel the need to discuss it so passionately? I see it as utterly mundane, it's like talking about what number you're going to bet at the lottery, there's not much to it in terms of metaphysics or ontology.

But how could real people act like someone that does not exist, or does not have some sort of causal efficacy? How did they come to dress and act like that in the first place? — Harry Hindu

Look. With all due respect. I see that you're an educated gentleman, and I've been acting a bit like a clown in my responses to you. But this thread is called "is the number 1 the cause of the number 2?" Now I ask you, sincerely: do you actually think that the answer to this question is yes? Do you really believe that? Or are you just wanting to have a verbal sparring session with me because you find it entertaining in some way?

The object is an image of energy/spirit/mind. — EnPassant

Is it like the Holy Ghost-Spirit-Dove/Pigeon in Christianity?

Objects are not ultimate realities. The hydrogen atom is an image of energy. When energy is configured in a certain pattern it forms an image; hydrogen, carbon, chair, table...
Matter can evaporate back to pure energy. This happens all the time in stars. In principle the entire universe can evaporate back to energy. If this happened it would disappear, along with physical spacetime.

After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[15]:§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long timescales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[15]:§VE It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will reach heat death.[15]:§VID
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#:~:text=The%20heat%20death%20of%20the,sustain%20processes%20that%20increase%20entropy.

Nothing of that has anything to do with numbers. Why is this such a controversial idea to you, that you feel the need to discuss it so passionately? I see it as utterly mundane, it's like talking about what number you're going to bet at the lottery, there's not much to it in terms of metaphysics or ontology. — Arcane Sandwich

You brought up the rules of chess as a separate example to numbers, so if chess has nothing to do with numbers, that's your problem, not mine. Why is it so difficult for you to focus?

Look. With all due respect. I see that you're an educated gentleman, and I've been acting a bit like a clown in my responses to you. But this thread is called "is the number 1 the cause of the number 2?" Now I ask you, sincerely: do you actually think that the answer to this question is yes? Do you really believe that? Or are you just wanting to have a verbal sparring session with me because you find it entertaining in some way? — Arcane Sandwich

I actually believe it because it is observable and provable. I have provided many examples where ideas have a causal relation with the rest of the world. Are you saying that thoughts and ideas and your mind is not part of the world? Or are you saying that the mind is an illusion? If the latter, then all you have done is pull the rug out from under your own position because everything you ever learned is via your mind, including information about brains and what they do. You also seem woefully uninformed of other possible views and explanations of the theory of mind and the observer effect.

Sir, I will politely point out that you have not answered my Question, which is the Question of the OP: Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2? Yes, or no? If so, then we would have to say (how couldn't we?) that the number 2 is the effect of the number 1.

Suppose, if only for the sake of argument, that such is indeed the case. What would that tell us, about the numbers themselves? Is the number 2 the cause of the number 3, for example? What is the cause of the negative number -5? What is the cause of the imaginary unit "i", which (allegedly) successfully refers to an "imaginary number"? What is the difference between a Real Number and an imaginary number? Are imaginary numbers unreal? What would that even mean? It's a mistake to confuse ontology with mathematics. When mathematicians speak of the set of the Real numbers, as something different from Imaginary numbers (like 1i, or 3i, or 5i), they're not conceptualizing them as "stones and trees -versus- mythological creatures". It has nothing to do with that. So why would you even say that the number 1 is the cause of the number 2? Why would you even speak about the mathematical relation between the number 1 and the number 2 as if it were a metaphysical or ontological relation? Because that is what the cause-effect relation is, at the end of the day: it's a metaphysical or ontological relation. Now, if you want to call that into question, in the manner of a British Empiricist like David Hume, be my guest. But I have just as much right to conceptualize it as an ontological relation instead, which is precisely what Mario Bunge does, and I agree with him on that point.

Is there an ontological relation between mind and world? Is there an ontological relation between different thoughts?

Can it be said that each sentence you wrote above is the cause of the following sentence? Is each letter the cause of the following letter you typed, or each word the cause of the following word in each sentence?

Is there an ontological relation between mind and world? — Harry Hindu

No, there isn't. There is an (embodied brain)-world correlation, instead of a mind-world correlation. And I say that in a Meillassouxian way. And I would add: the nature of the correlation in question is ontological.

Is there an ontological relation between different thoughts? — Harry Hindu

No, because thoughts are fictions, which exist as brain processes. They do not exist as fictions, because being and existence are not identical to each other. We've been over this point. Ontological relations do not hold, or obtain, between fictional objects (i.e., between thoughts).

Is each letter the cause of the following letter you typed — Harry Hindu

No, it is not, for the same reason that the number 1 is not the cause of the number 2.

or each word the cause of the following word in each sentence? — Harry Hindu

Again, no, that is not the case. Feel free to disagree, I'm not trying to deny you the basic human right to have thoughts.

Is there an ontological relation between mind and world?
— Harry Hindu

No, there isn't. There is an (embodied brain)-world correlation, instead of a mind-world correlation. And I say that in a Meillassouxian way. And I would add: the nature of the correlation in question is ontological.

Is there an ontological relation between different thoughts?
— Harry Hindu

No, because thoughts are fictions, which exist as brain processes — Arcane Sandwich

Ohhhhh! I get it now! You're a p-zombie!

So Chalmers was wrong because p-zombies DO behave differently (they talk differently about what thoughts and minds are - as being non-existent fictions, as opposed to what people with actual minds do - talk about thoughts and minds as being existent facts).

According to verificationism, for words to have meaning, their use must be open to public verification. Since it is assumed that we can talk about our qualia, the existence of zombies is impossible. — Wikipedia

But you've just proved that they do exist because you seem to have a different (or lack of) understanding of what is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words.

Ohhhhh! I get it now! You're a p-zombie! — Harry Hindu

No, I'm not a philosophical zombie. I can experience pain, as well as other qualia. I know "what it's like" to have a first-person perspective, because I actually have one.

thoughts and minds as being existent facts — Harry Hindu

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. What would the fact be, in such cases? It would be a fact that there is an apple on the table. But the apple itself is not a fact, it is instead a thing. The same goes for the table: it is a thing, not a fact. Thoughts are not facts, and they are not things, they are processes ("mental processes", if you will) and the mind is not a fact, nor a thing, it is instead a process (it is a series of processes that the brain undergoes, just as digestion is a process that the gut undergoes, just as the act of walking is a process that the legs undergo).

But you've just proved that they do exist because you seem to have a different (or lack of) understanding of what is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words. — Harry Hindu

What is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words has nothing to do with their existence, because they don't have existence to begin with. Existence is a real property that concrete, material things have, and only they (the concrete, material things) have it (existence is not a quantity, therefore the existential quantifier "∃" has no ontological import). Ideal objects (such as Plato's Ideas, or Aristotle's Prime Mover) do not have it. Stated differently, ideal objects do not have the property of existence. And the creative intentions of the speakers of a language make no difference here: you can creatively intend as much as you want when you mean that thoughts and minds exist, that doesn't magically grant them the property of existence.

Numbers are markers of their predecessors.

2 means "1+1". 4 means any of "1+1+2". "1+1+1+1" etc... So not sure cause is the right word.

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. — Arcane Sandwich

It might be worth pointing out that these things are "states of affairs" which I think can be distinguished from 'fact's. That said, they are suspiciously close in concept. But "the table" is a state of affairs (with regard to its atoms, i guess) and "that there is a table in X position" is the fact about hte table as you point out. But hte table itself is a "something" in existence. A "State of affairs" seems apt.

Numbers are markers of their predecessors.

2 means "1+1". 4 means any of "1+1+2". "1+1+1+1" etc... So not sure cause is the right word.

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either.
— Arcane Sandwich

It might be worth pointing out that these things are "states of affairs" which I think can be distinguished from 'fact's. That said, they are suspiciously close in concept. But "the table" is a state of affairs (with regard to its atoms, i guess) and "that there is a table in X position" is the fact about hte table as you point out. But hte table itself is a "something" in existence. A "State of affairs" seems apt. — AmadeusD

"State of affairs" is fine with me. I've use that phrase before as well.

Numbers can only be conceived once you establish mental categories and members of a category, as there can only be a quantity of members of a category whether it be tables, atoms or ideas. There is only one of everything until you establish mental categories. The question is do the boundaries of our categories mirror the boundaries in the world, or are the boundaries mental projections (the observer/measurer effect)?

No, I'm not a philosophical zombie. I can experience pain, as well as other qualia. I know "what it's like" to have a first-person perspective, because I actually have one. — Arcane Sandwich

To say that you actually have one is to say that there is an objective state of affairs where you have a first-person perspective. You can talk about it like you can talk about the apple on the table. The problem is your dualistic thinking in separating thoughts and minds from the world in describing them as being fictions and non-existent when there is no logical reason to do so. If anything there is evidence to the contrary. When you ask people to explain their behavior, they refer to their thoughts or mental states as the cause of their behaviors. Even false thoughts have an impact on our behavior as I already pointed out how you can manipulate people with lies, as much as I can manipulate their behavior by injecting them with drugs.

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. What would the fact be, in such cases? It would be a fact that there is an apple on the table. But the apple itself is not a fact, it is instead a thing. The same goes for the table: it is a thing, not a fact. Thoughts are not facts, and they are not things, they are processes ("mental processes", if you will) and the mind is not a fact, nor a thing, it is instead a process (it is a series of processes that the brain undergoes, just as digestion is a process that the gut undergoes, just as the act of walking is a process that the legs undergo). — Arcane Sandwich

All things are relations between other things. All things are process. Science shows that each thing is an interaction of smaller things. You never actually get at a thing - only a process.

Think of the world as an analog signal and your mind converts the analog signal into a digital signal (as discrete 0s and 1s). The objects you perceive are really these converted signals - from relational to discrete. Your brain processes sensory information at a certain frequency relative the the frequency of change in the environment. This relative frequency will have an effect on how we perceive other processes with fast processes appearing as a blur of motion or appearing to happen without cause, where slower processes will appear as solid static objects. Changing our view from microscopic to macroscopic also changes how we view objects as part of larger processes and vice versa. This is similar to the observer effect in QM.

What is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words has nothing to do with their existence, because they don't have existence to begin with. Existence is a real property that concrete, material things have, and only they (the concrete, material things) have it (existence is not a quantity, therefore the existential quantifier "∃" has no ontological import). Ideal objects (such as Plato's Ideas, or Aristotle's Prime Mover) do not have it. Stated differently, ideal objects do not have the property of existence. And the creative intentions of the speakers of a language make no difference here: you can creatively intend as much as you want when you mean that thoughts and minds exist, that doesn't magically grant them the property of existence. — Arcane Sandwich

Yet we talk about them like we talk about everything else that does exist. So what does it actually mean to exist or not exist if the way we talk about them does not provide a clue? Your use of, "material things" just shows how you are confusing the way things are with how you perceive them. What makes something material? What makes material things have causal efficacy and not non-material things? What do you say to someone who says that the word, "material" is meaningless when you never get at anything material - only processes, and material things are mental projections. In other words it is the idea that the world is material that is fiction, but it is real and exists because you are here expressing the idea in the form of scribbles on the screen. You can refer to it in the same way you can refer to apples on tables.

Without 1, 2 could not exist, though the reverse doesn’t hold. Since it is because of the existence of 1, or one thing, that there can be 2, or two things, then the former can be said to be the cause of the latter.

Does this hold? Surely this argument has been made plenty times before, no? — Pretty

Numbers do not exist. They are abstractions. One-ness and two-ness (etc) exist, as properties of groups of objects. There is a logical relation between one-ness and two-ness, but a logical relation is not a "cause".

The number 1 is not the cause of the number 2. Instead, the possibility of more than 1 is the cause of 2. If only 1 were possible, there would be no 2.

I was trying to put the playing cards into numeric order from number 1 to number 64. It was not a fast process at all, because when I picked up number 1 card, number 2 card didn't jump up by itself. The number 2 card was hiding behind no.35, and I had to go through all the cards to find the bloody number 2 card, and so on.

It was a clear evidence in real world, that numbers don't exist, and they don't cause anything at all. Our minds see and order them into numeric order.