Quote:
Originally Posted by esspoker
1. Numbers are abstractions from objects we perceive
1a. We evolved to perceive difference in objects; we learned to count, as a way to survive
2. Numbers do not exist in nature. I cannot perceive a number.
3. If all were one substance, then numbers would not exist, as a number is an abstraction stemming from the difference of objects.
Do you see a problem with the above logic?
Claim 1 can be challenged. Platonism is the claim that numbers are real objects and not just mental objects. That is, numbers would exist even if humans didn't.
Claim 1a is a reminder that evolutionary arguments are really difficult to pull off effectively. A lot of them (like this one) are narratives that we just kind of make up because it's convenient to assert that evolution does X if X is somehow useful to us. It's either true by assumption or it requires substantial argumentation.
Claim 2 can also be challenged. It can be argued that you perceive the number 2 every time you are mentally aware of two objects. We know this because you know when there are two objects in front of you and you know when there is a different number of objects in front of you.
Claim 3 relies on the weird "substance" argument. Without any clarification on what you mean by that, there's no reason to accept that it's even sensible. You're arguing things like "substance" is cannot be distinguished while attributes can, but that still opens the door for distinctions to allow for separation and so I don't even know what you're actually trying to claim by making a substance argument.
Also, the whole structure can be challenged. There is no clear logical flow to this thing. My understanding is that you're trying to prove that "If all is one substance, then numbers don't exist." Shouldn't you be starting from "Suppose all is one substance"? And shouldn't the claim that numbers don't exist NOT be your assertion in point 2?
Quote:
I did read some of the articles of what others thought. I would not place all my judgement in the hands of other people. Just because it's written elsewhere is no substitute for thought. It's also an appeal to authority to point to articles and say, "see, they haven't said anything about what you are saying, so you are wrong." You should try thinking things through on your own as opposed to following the threads of others...
I don't argue that you should simply accept their claims and arguments because they're people who have clearly put way more time into this than you. But willful ignorance is something to be avoided, and if you're going to persist down that pathway then there's little that can save you from yourself.
Based on the level of argumentation you've presented, I've thought about this far more than you have, and I've pointed out the various flaws in your position. You can take it or leave it, as my beliefs on the matter don't actually have any conceivable influence in your actual life. This is all just stuff for the brain.
But I would definitely encourage you to try to be less ignorant and make better arguments. If you think your argument above is unassailable, you're just wrong.