it would be of no use. — Janus
It's not dogmatism: I'll change my mind — Janus
If you can demonstrate that some rule could always yield the same result as addition and yet differs from it in the very part of it that does so. So, for example quaddition is exactly the same as addition up to any sum that does not exceed 57. — Janus
You are defending the use of addition over other rules without demonstrating it. Your main justification so far seems to be that anything other than addition is arbitrary, but that in itself seems dogmatic. What do you mean by arbitrary other than that is just what you are used to, what seems natural... just what feels right? That seems to be dogmatism in the sense of the above wikipedia article. — Apustimelogist
all I've been saying is that addition seems to me to be a natural development of cognition-based counting — Janus
There is no cognition-based logic to justify such an arbitrary stipulation — Janus
I deem the whole thing a lame non-issue; I see no significance in it. — Janus
You say you unddrstand the logic of addition; lay out for me that logic then and give me the facts that rule out that you will give a quus-type answer in future uses of addition. — Apustimelogist
This whole thing deep down is about the relationship between words and the world. The question is something like: do words have a fixed one-to-one relationship with the things that exist in the world in a way that they are intrinsically related? Does our behavior and thoughts prescribed in a rigidly defined, top-down manner by words and definitions, as if meaning has some kind of essence to it? — Apustimelogist
but there is no single way to characterize it or label it or put boundaries around it. — Apustimelogist
I have already said that the logic of addition is unlimited iteration; in principle we can keep adding forever. — Janus
The logic of quaddition like rules diverges from this when it stipulates some hiatus or terminus at whatever arbitrary point. — Janus
As long as such a quaddition-like rule does not diverge from the normal logic of addition, then there is no discernible difference and hence no need to use a different name to signify that procedure. — Janus
Two is always two regardless of what word you use to signify the concept. — Janus
In contrast the concepts /tree/ or /animal/ are not so determinate. — Janus
So, introducing questions about ordinary language into a discussion of counting and addition is only going to confuse the issue. — Janus
I don't need to do that; I don't need to define some essence in order to know that I am counting or adding — Janus
I don't even need to define the rule because the logic of counting and adding accords with the logic inherent in the cognition of mutlitudinous things. — Janus
Nothing new regarding this is emerging from you, so I think we are done. — Janus
But what do you mean when you say "adding" or "forever". How am I sure you don't actually mean "qu-orever" instead of "forever"? — Apustimelogist
I wouldn't be still saying anything if you would just give me what I want, but you can't. — Apustimelogist
and because you can't even demonstrate you're actually adding, you cannot even demonstrate that what you feel is actually truly addition and not quaddition. — Apustimelogist
Forever means there is no limit in priniciple. What does "qu-orever" mean — Janus
Tell me that and I'll tell you whether I meant that. — Janus
I don't even know what you want me to give, since you apparently are unable to articulate it clearly. — Janus
C'mon man, this is total bullshit. I know what adding consists in, and if you could tell me precisely what quadding consists in then I could point to how it is different than adding. — Janus
I think it means, "Until you drop dead while adding 320 to 180 and only manage to say '5' before you keel over."
We will all stand around saying, "See, he was using quaddition!" — wonderer1
You've just repeated a synonym for "forever" so how does that help? What does "no limit" mean and does any of this really help without specifying what exactly has "no limit"? — Apustimelogist
Any term can only be defined in other terms, so how does any term help? :roll: You know as well as I do what 'forever' in the context of 'addition can go on in principle forever'. You also know what 'no limit' means in the context of 'there is no reason to think there is, in principle, any limit to addition'. — Janus
We start with noting that there is a number so large, you've never dealt with it before, but in our challenge, we'll just pick 57. You've never dealt with anything over that. You and I are sitting with a skeptic. — frank
When one says that they've never dealt with a number over 57, does that mean that we do not know if addition will work when trying to add things to sums greater than 57? Or does it just mean that we haven't bothered to add that high but have the knowledge that addition will definitely continue to work? — ToothyMaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.