# I'm bowing out of all future "paranormal" threads. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003 "2004-10-25T05:08:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/81 "2004-10-26T07:40:03Z")
Y eso con que se come? In Spanish, it is an old saying: literally it means: “So how do you eat that (whatever the subject is) with?” Symbolically, it means that the listener already understands what someone is trying to tell them, and it refers then to what eventually any logic talk has to follow some day to be relevant: what then? When the discussion goes the way of **Liberal** , the facts can indeed be on his side, but there is always the real world. Oh, that “little” detail! :smack: I have arrived to the conclusion a long time ago that the truths **Liberal** and others talk about do make sense in the terrain of logic, but they are in a similar plain as quantum mechanics vs. the world of regular physics, one has to go to the atomic level to see quantum effects, similarly one can go to logic to find true syllogisms, but just like the communists found, having the “truth”, doesn’t amount to much if it cannot be applied in the world we have to deal with. (Frankly, ignoring that total nuts can grab your ideas and use them for evil, should convince every future creator of ideologies to add always a chapter of what not to do with the new truths found). It maybe intellectually honest to accept those “truths” but it would be dishonest not to see the limitations in the real world. For example: the Swifters against Kerry used a similar tactic to convince a good deal of the American people of their version of the “truth”. The problem was that evidence appeared later to show how way of the mark they were. The trouble here is: if we then concentrate on **Liberal** ’s logic, no evidence can ever show their syllogisms are false, since logically speaking, they did not lie (often). Nevertheless, the result is exactly like lying, many people then got convinced that something was there against Kerry. However, a lot of what the Swifters said against Kerry was said in a way to precisely avoid falsification (equivocate), or in other words: impossible to deny, but also impossible to prove, so one can “honestly” say they have the “truth”. (And even then they overreached when items referred by them were found to be false). However, the real world intervenes: partisan connections then denied were found to be there, contradictions on their positions, the fact that it was Judicial Watch that took the case to the Navy and not the Swifters (they should have done that ages ago if truth was on their side, but they already knew the record supported Kerry, they did not knew that there was more evidence in Kerry’s favor that they had not access to though). So, in the end, it was just an exercise in character assassination, we will soon see if they succeeded in the real reason: to prevent Kerry from becoming president. But, defeating Kerry will make what they said against him the “truth”? Maybe in **Liberal** ’s and in some logical universes it is the truth, but when their “truth” is misleading (a big lie when considering the context), one has to see that two positions will not always have the same value; and no syllogism that is “true”, in specific quarters, can have all the answers for our world. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/82 "2004-10-26T07:58:46Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Well, no the number 2 itself doesn’t exist in reality… Doesn’t it? It’s in my head, it’s in yours. Are our heads not nature or reality? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/83 "2004-10-26T09:14:57Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > One little thing: I’d appreciate it if you could mention which links lead to PDFs in the future. Thanks. Just check your status bar when you hover over the link. If it ends in “.pdf”, it is a PDF. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how that document supports your premise. I can’t find anything about abstractions in it. It’s the line of text labeled “1.” at the top of the page, “All numbers are abstractions based on equivalence classes”. > [@](#): > > Well, no the number 2 itself doesn’t exist in reality, but (as I’ve said) it describes reality and follows reality’s rules. You asked for a number 2 that existed whether you saw it or not; well, if you drop an orange into a bowl with another orange in it, there will be two oranges no matter if you’re there to look or not. Two oranges isn’t the number 2; it’s a set of oranges: {Orange, Orange’}. The number 2 may describe not just any arbitrary pair of anything, but any cardinality, C, where C = 1’. Thus, there can be a distance of 2 feet. (Surely, you will concede that “feet” in this sense is a human concoction.) It also can describe any ordinality, O, where O = {1 \< 2 \< 3}. That’s why it’s called an abstraction. > [@](#): > > As for your earlier link about different types of claims, I obviously agree with and understand it. I just don’t see why you would put “1+1=2” with “the Constitution gives us freedom of speech”, which cannot be empirically tested and is only true as long as everyone pretends it is, rather than with “the Moon is made of green cheese”. Without the right kind of cognition, such as that which comes from the human frontal lobe, there would be no numbers. You’ve seen horses that do the arithmetic tricks by stomping their hooves, and you know that that’s just a trick requiring the horse’s trainer to give stimulus clues to make the horse stomp the correct number of times. You’ve heard that the thing to do when you’re in a group that confronts a bear is to join your hands together and raise your fists in the air because the bear then perceives you all as one giant thing, like an elephant. Numbers are similar to linguistic devices (words) in that they _describe_ things — they comprise a symbology, a symbology that requires cognition to decode. Recall from the cite that an analytic claim “makes a statement about the meaning of words **or other symbols** ”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/84 "2004-10-26T09:16:04Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Doesn’t it? It’s in my head, it’s in yours. Are our heads not nature or reality? If God is “in our heads”, does that prove to your satisfaction that He is natural or real? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/85 "2004-10-26T09:19:55Z")
> [@GIGOBuster](#): > > It maybe intellectually honest to accept those “truths” but it would be dishonest not to see the limitations in the real world. For example: the Swifters against Kerry used a similar tactic to convince a good deal of the American people of their version of the “truth”. The problem was that evidence appeared later to show how way of the mark they were. The trouble here is: if we then concentrate on Liberal’s logic, no evidence can ever show their syllogisms are false, since logically speaking, they did not lie (often). Nevertheless, the result is exactly like lying, many people then got convinced that something was there against Kerry. However, a lot of what the Swifters said against Kerry was said in a way to precisely avoid falsification (equivocate), or in other words: impossible to deny, but also impossible to prove, so one can “honestly” say they have the “truth”. (And even then they overreached when items referred by them were found to be false). But equivocation and the like are logical fallacies. That’s what makes their argument NOT true. To be true, a logical argument must be sound — that is, it must follow the rules of logic and all its assertions must be true. There’s nothing sneaky or weird about it anymore than there is anything sneaky or weird about algebra and other symbological systems. If there’s a flaw, it’s wrong. Otherwise, it’s right. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/86 "2004-10-26T09:29:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Just check your status bar when you hover over the link. If it ends in “.pdf”, it is a PDF. Come on. You really think I don’t know this? I made a polite request, that’s all. > [@](#): > > It’s the line of text labeled “1.” at the top of the page, “All numbers are abstractions based on equivalence classes”. And the support for that is where? Seems like another assertion to me. Of course numbers themselves don’t exist, as I’ve said before, but they do describe reality, and they have real counterparts, and they follow the rules of reality. Look, **Liberal** , you’re obviously learned, and you’re certainly not stupid. But it does seem to be the case that you forget the application to reality quite often. Like when it gets up your goat that people say “you can’t prove a negative”. Of course you can prove, for example, that 1+1 isn’t 3. The unwritten qualifier is “in any meaningful way”. Thus, we cannot prove that there _isn’t_ a monster in Loch Ness, that Uri Geller _doesn’t_ bend spoons through the use of divine powers, or indeed that God _doesn’t_ exist. That’s what we mean when we say “you can’t prove a negative” and in that sense it’s true. Take your own _Trading Places_ thread. Almost everything I said in that thread was technically incorrect, because Valentine and Winthorpe weren’t trading accomodations, they were trading contracts, options or futures. I didn’t mention that, partly because English is my second language and I wasn’t sure of the terminology, but mainly because it didn’t really matter one jot. You got the idea anyway, and I’m sure you’re bright enough to realize that there were no trucks filled with concentrated frozen orange juice racing back and forth as the trading happened. The same applies here. We may talk about it for ever and you may claim over and over again that the number “2” is different from two objects that we describe by calling them “2” objects, but does it have any application in reality whatsoever? If not, what are we arguing about? Either way, would it or should it have any bearing on our treatment of **Aeschines**? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/87 "2004-10-26T09:54:51Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Come on. You really think I don’t know this? I made a polite request, that’s all. And I gave a polite reply. > [@](#): > > And the support for that is where? Everywhere. Even in the definitions of both number and abstraction. > [@](#): > > Seems like another assertion to me. Ah, so that’s the game — the one I described to Aeschines. You demand a cite, and even when it comes from a department of mathematics at an acredited university, you shrug it off as though it meant nothing. I can give you cites from Immanuel Kant to Albert Einstein (which Sentient already gave you), and you will fold up your arms, declaring that all people on earth (besides yourself, of course) are just making “assertions”. > [@](#): > > Of course numbers themselves don’t exist, as I’ve said before, but they do describe reality, and they have real counterparts, and they follow the rules of reality. Bullshit again. You’ve already been shown counter-examples that, of course, you ignored. I ask once again, what in reality is represented by 4/x where x = 0? Where in nature is the “countepart” for 10[sup]1000000000000000000[/sup]? > [@](#): > > Look, **Liberal** , you’re obviously learned, and you’re certainly not stupid. But it does seem to be the case that you forget the application to reality quite often. Like when it gets up your goat that people say “you can’t prove a negative”. Of course you can prove, for example, that 1+1 isn’t 3. The unwritten qualifier is “in any meaningful way”. Thus, we cannot prove that there _isn’t_ a monster in Loch Ness, that Uri Geller _doesn’t_ bend spoons through the use of divine powers, or indeed that God _doesn’t_ exist. That’s what we mean when we say “you can’t prove a negative” and in that sense it’s true. Then you should say what you mean. It has nothing to do with any negative, but rather with the examination set. It is a problem of induction, not deduction. You can’t prove it either way — positive or negative — without setting out to examine the entire set. I mean, just look at how absurd the statement is on its face. “You \*\*cannot \*\* prove a negative” is _itself_ a negative proposition, and so you cannot prove that you cannot prove a negative. It’s just plain stupid. > [@](#): > > Take your own _Trading Places_ thread. Almost everything I said in that thread was technically incorrect, because Valentine and Winthorpe weren’t trading accomodations, they were trading contracts, options or futures. I didn’t mention that, partly because English is my second language and I wasn’t sure of the terminology, but mainly because it didn’t really matter one jot. You got the idea anyway, and I’m sure you’re bright enough to realize that there were no trucks filled with concentrated frozen orange juice racing back and forth as the trading happened. Not only did I get the idea, but I trusted your judgment as an authority on the topic. If I thought you were bullshitting me, I would ignore your responses and wait for someone I trusted. Why you do not extend the same courtesy is unclear. If I have demonstrated some logical fallacy in this particular discourse or have demonstrated some ineptitude about philosophy, then I could understand your recalcitrance. > [@](#): > > The same applies here. We may talk about it for ever and you may claim over and over again that the number “2” is different from two objects that we describe by calling them “2” objects, but does it have any application in reality whatsoever? If not, what are we arguing about? Either way, would it or should it have any bearing on our treatment of **Aeschines**? Because you should do like Sentient, Spiritus, and other honorable materialists (or physicalists) and treat Aeschines fairly. If he makes a metaphysical claim, then do not demand empirical evidence. Demand analytic proof. It’s only fair. It’s only right. And arguing fairly and rightly seems to me to be a good application for reality, where we’re all just people and we all have feelings. Sometimes some people say I come down on people hard, but so do those of you who make unreasonable demands that accomplish nothing but driving people away from discussions when they have done nothing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/88 "2004-10-26T10:32:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Ah, so that’s the game — the one I described to Aeschines. You demand a cite, and even when it comes from a department of mathematics at an acredited university, you shrug it off as though it meant nothing. I can give you cites from Immanuel Kant to Albert Einstein (which Sentient already gave you), and you will fold up your arms, declaring that all people on earth (besides yourself, of course) are just making “assertions”. No, that is _not the point_. > [@](#): > > Bullshit again. You’ve already been shown counter-examples that, of course, you ignored. I ask once again, what in reality is represented by 4/x where x = 0? Nothing, which is why “divide by zero” can’t be done. > [@](#): > > 1000000000000000000[/sup]? Wherever there are 10[sup]1000000000000000000[/sup] things. > [@](#): > > Not only did I get the idea, but I trusted your judgment as an authority on the topic. If I thought you were bullshitting me, I would ignore your responses and wait for someone I trusted. Why you do not extend the same courtesy is unclear. Mainly because what I was doing was telling you facts, as best I knew them. I still cannot see that you’re giving me anything but opinions. Let’s make this really simple. You’re saying “1+1=2” is a completely different kind of statement, an analytical statement, from “the Earth is round” or whatever, which is an empirical statement. Right? Explain to me, as you would to a child, why. What is the fundamental, and _meaningful_, difference? > [@](#): > > Because you should do like Sentient, Spiritus, and other honorable materialists (or physicalists) and treat Aeschines fairly. If he makes a metaphysical claim, then do not demand empirical evidence. But he didn’t. He made an empirical claim. That, I’m sure you agree, requires empirical evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/89 "2004-10-26T10:57:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If God is “in our heads”, does that prove to your satisfaction that He is natural or real? “god” exists to the extent that it is a concept in some people’s heads, yes. Just like the number 2. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/90 "2004-10-26T11:21:13Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > No, that is not the point. It might not be _your_ point, but it is _my_ point. You’ve been given the definitions of the terms, the arguments of authorities on the topic, explanatory texts from universities, a formal and irrefutable syllogism spelling out the obvious — and _still_ you fold your arms and refuse to budge. You have encountered a good-faith argument that is without flaw or error, and the fact that you maintain your position is quite ridiculous. What is the point in debating you at all? > [@](#): > > Nothing, which is why “divide by zero” can’t be done. It _can_ be done. The solution to 4/0 is {}. It isn’t undoable; it’s merely undefined. > [@](#): > > Wherever there are 10[sup]1000000000000000000[/sup] things. Which is exactly nowhere. Therefore, there is no natural correspondence. > [@](#): > > Mainly because what I was doing was telling you facts, as best I knew them. I still cannot see that you’re giving me anything but opinions. Then you aren’t reading the cites. They explain (and I have explained) exactly _why_ numbers are analytic. You have seen the very _definition_ of analytic claims — claims about symbols. It is a _fact_ that 1+1=2 is an analytic claim because it is a string of symbols. > [@](#): > > Let’s make this really simple. You’re saying “1+1=2” is a completely different kind of statement, an analytical statement, from “the Earth is round” or whatever, which is an empirical statement. Right? Explain to me, as you would to a child, why. What is the fundamental, and meaningful, difference? Okay. To a child, I would say this: Reach down and touch the earth. [He reaches down and touches it.] Do you feel it? [He nods.] Okay, now reach out and touch the number 2. [He looks at me a bit dumbfounded, but he’s a smart kid and starts to reach for my head.] No no, I tell him. I’m thinking about jello. You won’t find what you’re looking for there. [He’s still a smart kid, and puts two stones together, touching them. He looks up at me beaming. That’s two stones!] And now I smile. Good. Now touch the 2 \*without \* touching the stones. [While he cogitates, I pour a whole bucket of stones onto the ground.] Can you touch these stones? [He touches them and nods.] How many are there? [I can’t count that many! he protests.] But I can, I tell him. Does that mean that there’s a different number of stones for you than there are for me? Or are there the same number of stones for you, for me, and for the ant that is crawling over them? [I don’t know, he says.] But you do know they are stones. [He nods.] And so, I tell him, okay now reach out and touch the hoxratch. [He looks at me quizzically. The what?] The hoxratch. Touch the hoxratch. [What’s a hoxratch?] You mean, if I teach you what the word means, it would make a difference? [He nods, uh huh.] Okay, a hoxratch is a stone. [Immediately, he touches a stone.] If I call it a shickshock, can you still touch it? [He says yes.] Is there anything I could call it that would prevent you from touching it? [He thinks a moment and shakes his head. Nope!] Then the symbol I use makes no difference. [Right.] So, if there was no symbol at all, would there still be a stone? [Yes. Just not a word.] So, a stone can exist without a word, and a word can exist without a stone? [He thinks a moment. Sure!] Finally, I ask him, what does the stone call itself? [He pauses. Nothing! Stones can’t talk!] Does the pile of stones know how many stones it has? [He laughs. No!] Do your two stones know they are two? [No!] So, if all people disappeared, would there still be two stones? [He hesitates. Yeah, I think so.] But if we’re not here, then we can’t think. Who will say that there are two stones? Will the stones say it? [No!] Will the earth say it? [No! No one will say it because no one will be here!] So, who invented 2? Us or the stones? [We did!] Then 2 will die with us, won’t it? [Yes.] Remember, son, that there is a difference between a symbol and the thing the symbol represents. One of them is something we made up; the other was already there. It’s like the difference between a map of the town and the town itself. > [@](#): > > But he didn’t. He made an empirical claim. That, I’m sure you agree, requires empirical evidence. Actually, I think he made a braoder epistemic claim, but still you’re right. And that’s what I told him. If he makes an epistemic claim, then he had better be prepared to offer proof of the epistemic possibility. In my post to him, I wrote: “If someone of Sentient’s calibre asks you for a cite, it is because you have made an epistemic claim. But then, that is your own error, given the context of your argument.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/91 "2004-10-26T11:26:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > “god” exists to the extent that it is a concept in some people’s heads, yes. Just like the number 2. 😃 How precious. You cannot bring yourself to capitalize the word even when it begins a sentence. Forgive me if I suspect an agenda. At any rate, you are describing a very odd sort of existence. Very subjective. I presume that a person who does not grock the concept of the square root of 2 may declare that it does not exist since he can’t hold it “in his head” and your own head is of no benefit to him. And I may say that you don’t exist simply by denying that I perceive you. Isn’t that a bit like the child who believes that when he hides his eyes behind the sofa no one can see him? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/92 "2004-10-26T11:31:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then you aren’t reading the cites. They explain (and I have explained) exactly _why_ numbers are analytic. You have seen the very _definition_ of analytic claims — claims about symbols. It is a _fact_ that 1+1=2 is an analytic claim because it is a string of symbols. I understand that, _but_, I don’t understand the fundamental and meaningful difference. To me, this sounds merely like a taxonomy. Chimpanzees and gibbons are apes, humans are not (well, according to some taxonomies they are, but let’s skip that for argument’s sake). Why? Because we’ve decided that it is the case. It’s not one hundred percent arbitrary, but it’s still arbitrary. Some people have defined “analytical claim” one way and “empirical claim” another way, but I don’t see why that has anything to do with how I approach two different claims. > [@](#): > > Okay. To a child, I would say this(snip) No-one will say there are two stones, but there will still be two stones. The symbol/word/whatever doesn’t matter, as you say. We could let %=1 and ;=2 and so on and still have mathematics and mathematics would be exactly the same, only look different. An alien race could invent mathematics and it would be exactly the same, because it is a property of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/93 "2004-10-26T11:43:48Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > An alien race could invent mathematics and it would be exactly the same, because it is a property of the universe. (Color added.) That’s _WRONG._ I’ve had this debate before here–many times. For some reason atheists like to think this. Here’s a thought experiment: So, there could be a universe in which 2 + 2 = 5 and everything else was the same? There could be a universe in which π = 3.15 precisely and everything else was exactly the same? No, there couldn’t. The laws of math and logic transcend any physical system. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/94 "2004-10-26T12:01:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 😃 How precious. You cannot bring yourself to capitalize the word even when it begins a sentence. Forgive me if I suspect an agenda. I didn’t capitalize god in that sentence deliberately because I was describing not the proper-noun-deserving God that theists believe in (which they usually seem to describe as something outside of their head) but rather god as an abstract concept that some people (I don’t doubt) have in their heads. > [@](#): > > I presume that a person who does not grock the concept of the square root of 2 may declare that it does not exist since he can’t hold it “in his head” and your own head is of no benefit to him. Not at all. You are making an unwarranted assumption about my position. All I said was that abstract concepts had an existence in the sense that they really are in people’s minds. I did not suggest that they did not exist if they did not exist in my mind in particular. Clearly if you tell me that there is an abstract concept in your head but not mine, there is an evidential problem for me in trying to decide if you really do have that abstract concept in your head or you’re just bullshitting me, but that’s a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/95 "2004-10-26T12:02:42Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > (Color added.) > That’s _WRONG._ I’ve had this debate before here–many times. For some reason atheists like to think this. > > Here’s a thought experiment: So, there could be a universe in which 2 + 2 = 5 and everything else was the same? > > There could be a universe in which π = 3.15 precisely and everything else was exactly the same? > > No, there couldn’t. The laws of math and logic transcend any physical system. Ummm. Isn’t that what Priceguy is saying? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/96 "2004-10-26T12:05:28Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Ummm. Isn’t that what Priceguy is saying? Yes it is. **Aeschines** misunderstood me, and assumed that by “universe” I meant “this particular physical universe that we are living in right now, as opposed to any other possible universe”. To be fair, I could have chosen a better phrase, but for the record I agree completely with what **Aeschines** said in that post. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/97 "2004-10-26T12:07:22Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I understand that, _but_, I don’t understand the fundamental and meaningful difference. To me, this sounds merely like a taxonomy. Chimpanzees and gibbons are apes, humans are not (well, according to some taxonomies they are, but let’s skip that for argument’s sake). Why? Because we’ve decided that it is the case. It’s not one hundred percent arbitrary, but it’s still arbitrary. Some people have defined “analytical claim” one way and “empirical claim” another way, but I don’t see why that has anything to do with how I approach two different claims. It’s arbitrary in the sense that a saw is arbitrarily different from a hammer. But if you want to build a house, it helps to know which is better suited for which tasks. If a claim is a two-by-four, then you must decide what is the best tool for addressing it: use a saw to cut it in half, but a hammer to nail it up. Likewise, if a claim is metaphysical, then you must address it with analytic argument. But if it is empirical, then you must address it with observations. It does no good and accomplishes nothing to address a metaphysical claim with observation, or an empirical claim with with first order logic. Someone claims, “I’ve seen a ghost.” The proper response is not, “derive that observation from a premise and an inference.” The proper response is, “show me evidence it was there”. Likewise, if someone claims, “Ghosts exist,” the proper response is not, “show me one.” (After all, it could be an illusion that fools you both, or an intrinsic flaw in the experimental method.) The proper response is “show how that is possible”. The right tool for the right job. Don’t use the Bible to prove how the earth was created, and don’t use science to prove that existence is a predicate. > [@](#): > > No-one will say there are two stones, but there will still be two stones. Why so? Where will be the grid that localizes and isolates those two things from all others? Where is the cognition that will even identify them as stones at all? There will be no localities, no differentiations, no meaning at all. > [@](#): > > The symbol/word/whatever doesn’t matter, as you say. We could let %=1 and ;=2 and so on and still have mathematics and mathematics would be exactly the same, only look different. An alien race could invent mathematics and it would be exactly the same, because it is a property of the universe. No, now see, you made a true statement and then immediately contradicted it. Just as there is a difference between the symbol and the thing it represents, so there is a difference between a property of the universe and the symbology that describes the property. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/98 "2004-10-26T12:17:38Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Yes it is. **Aeschines** misunderstood me, and assumed that by “universe” I meant “this particular physical universe that we are living in right now, as opposed to any other possible universe”. To be fair, I could have chosen a better phrase, but for the record I agree completely with what **Aeschines** said in that post. I see. Then I’m confused as to how you disagree with Liberal, as I perceive myself as agreeing with him. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/99 "2004-10-26T12:20:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It’s arbitrary in the sense that a saw is arbitrarily different from a hammer. But if you want to build a house, it helps to know which is better suited for which tasks. Yes, I agree. I just don’t agree that analytical statements are so different from empirical ones as to matter, if they are indeed different at all. > [@](#): > > Someone claims, “I’ve seen a ghost.” The proper response is not, “derive that observation from a premise and an inference.” The proper response is, “show me evidence it was there”. This we agree on. > [@](#): > > Likewise, if someone claims, “Ghosts exist,” the proper response is not, “show me one.” (After all, it could be an illusion that fools you both, or an intrinsic flaw in the experimental method.) The proper response is “show how that is possible”. This is, again, where you lose me. You can prove that ghosts _could_ exist all day long, but you still haven’t come closer to showing that ghosts _do_ exist, which is the claim. > [@](#): > > Don’t use the Bible to prove how the earth was created, and don’t use science to prove that existence is a predicate. This is where the second-language handicap comes in. I don’t understand what “existence is a predicate” means, not even after looking up the word “predicate”. > [@](#): > > Why so? Where will be the grid that localizes and isolates those two things from all others? Where is the cognition that will even identify them as stones at all? There will be no localities, no differentiations, no meaning at all. Yes there will, just like there is now. We’re merely observers. Stars and planets formed long before anyone was there to call them “stars” or “planets”. They were still what we today call stars and planets, they just hadn’t been given those names yet. > [@](#): > > No, now see, you made a true statement and then immediately contradicted it. Just as there is a difference between the symbol and the thing it represents, so there is a difference between a property of the universe and the symbology that describes the property. Like I said in my response to **Princhester** , my choice of phrasing was indeed poor. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/100 "2004-10-26T12:22:20Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I see. Then I’m confused as to how you disagree with Liberal, as I perceive myself as agreeing with him. 😕 Whether mathematics is universal isn’t the subject of our disagreement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=6)