Prev: Is gravity running out of puff?
Next: New Primitive Programming Language - Is it Turing Complete?
From: John Jones on 29 Nov 2009 16:27
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:01:04 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>
>> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
>> What is the reason for that?
>
> You defined yourself as a (1) object. From this you abstract '1.0'. If
> there can not be .99 of an object but only no (0) object, there are no
> fewer than just you.

Yes, but its still very odd that I am at the bottom of the pile, with no
fewer objects than me.

>
> If, on the other hand, you or another would defined yourself as a set of
> objects, say organs or cells, the same argument could be made by
> readjusting the definition of object or '1'.
>
> So the reason for all this is your own very special reason.
From: John Jones on 29 Nov 2009 16:29
pbamvv(a)worldonline.nl wrote:
> On 29 nov, 04:01, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
>> What is the reason for that?
>>
>> Am I either the first cardinal or the first number, or neither?
>
> Dear John,
>
> I would imagine you are a subject not an object, though sometimes you
> manage to show so much disregard for the posts you react to that you
> might indeed be a mere robot.
>
> Meanwhile some people may believe what you are saying here and
> consider you to be nothing at all. (0)
>
> I do hope you are more than that. . . .
>
> Love,
>
> Peter van Velzen
> November 2009
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands

At my illuminated table lies a great welcoming repaste for the wayfarer
and the lost.
From: ZerkonXXXX on 30 Nov 2009 10:49
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:27:36 +0000, John Jones wrote:

> Yes, but its still very odd that I am at the bottom of the pile, with no
> fewer objects than me.

No, the (your) number, not you, is at the bottom of your pile.

If you, as '1', is at the bottom then all other '1's are also. So, there
can be no top to be a bottom to!!

Bottoms up!

From: John Jones on 30 Nov 2009 11:28
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:27:36 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>
>> Yes, but its still very odd that I am at the bottom of the pile, with no
>> fewer objects than me.
>
> No, the (your) number, not you, is at the bottom of your pile.
>
> If you, as '1', is at the bottom then all other '1's are also. So, there
> can be no top to be a bottom to!!
>
> Bottoms up!
>

So even though there are more objects than me, they are all one object,
like me. How do I tell us apart?
From: Kevin B. Murphy on 30 Nov 2009 12:13
One exists because there is only one one. Two doesn't exist if there is only
one two. What is the next number in this sequence: 1,... if it isn't 22?

--
Denial of Free Will makes the Knowledge of Order Absolute.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Is gravity running out of puff?
Next: New Primitive Programming Language - Is it Turing Complete?