Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:01:35 UTC No. 16184342

>>16184332
>We assume the natural numbers are infinite
They are, you can just make up an infinite amount of numbers
>this is the peak of namefag intelligence

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:06:51 UTC No. 16184350

>>16184332
True, and greater orders of infinity or cardinality is also insane. Georg Cantor was simply wrong with that.
>>16184342
>They are, you can just make up an infinite amount of numbers
You can just make shit up?
So what story writers do.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:10:47 UTC No. 16184358

>>16184350
>You can just make shit up?
Numbers are made up and don't correspond to any physical object in reality, they are abstract objects in mathematical space

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:12:00 UTC No. 16184360

>>16184358
And you're a retard, and that wasn't made up. It's the opposite of infinity - it's the cage of your mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:16:13 UTC No. 16184366

>>16184360
Maybe if you spent less time drooling on your keyboard we would have less retarded threads on sci

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:19:36 UTC No. 16184369

>>16184358
>Numbers are made up
Lol, so you think the number of Protons in a hydrogen atom is "made up"?
You think the distance between the moon and the Earth is "made up"?
How do you even remember to breath?
seriously.
>>16184366
>Maybe if you spent less time drooling on your keyboard we would have less retarded threads on sci
Do you have five eyes anon?
numbers are just made up remember?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:32:04 UTC No. 16184385

>>16184358
Retarded af post

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:46:06 UTC No. 16184412

>>16184342
>there is no largest natural number
>natural numbers are infinite
pick one.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:51:00 UTC No. 16184419

>>16184369
This guy >>16184358 gets it. The number of protons in a hydrogen atom is not made up. Numbers are made up. Example >>16184369 was written by one (1) idiot. The number is made up and defined such that it works within out mathematical set of constraints. This doesnt change anything about the count of idiots it takes to write a post. Numbers are symbols made up to enable expression of observations.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:52:01 UTC No. 16184421

>>16184412
Infinity is not one number, moron.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 12:55:23 UTC No. 16184426

>>16184421
>countably infinite
>count
>not a number
how do you count a non-number?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:05:09 UTC No. 16184444

>>16184369
>Lol, so you think the number of Protons in a hydrogen atom is "made up"?
>You think the distance between the moon and the Earth is "made up"?
Neither of those things are made of numbers or have a quantitative representation in the information field of reality, because reality isn't a quantitative system, unless you're some simulation hypothesis schizo, numbers and quantities are abstract constructs in isolated systems constructed to imitate physical phenomena in mathematical space, the numbers themselves are not made of anything nor is anything made of numbers, it's as made up as any other human language, that's why you can use mathematical systems to construct things that don't exist, it's all made up

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:27:46 UTC No. 16184474

>>16184419
>The number of protons in a hydrogen atom is not made up
But you're saying it is dumbfuck lol.
>>16184444
>Neither of those things are made of numbers
So you have ten eyes in your head?
You're so astoundingly stupid anon.
I can shoot ten bullets into your head and you won't die because it's just a non-existent number?
Want to test that out anon?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:45:01 UTC No. 16184500

>>16184444
>the numbers themselves are not made of anything nor is anything made of numbers, it's as made up as any other human language, that's why you can use mathematical systems to construct things that don't exist, it's all made up
Lol, that doesn't follow at all you stupid imbecile.
Obama is the name for somebody that exists.
It's describing something that exists.
I can make up a name for somebody that doesn't exist but it isn't the name of a real person.

Same with mathematics. Real mathematics counts, quantifies and describes relationships between things that actually exist.

I can imagine numbers or principles for things that don't exist but it isn't actual mathematics because it isn't describing anything real.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:57:38 UTC No. 16184516

>>16184500
>Obama is the name for somebody that exists.
>It's describing something that exists.
And yet the word obama doesn't exist in the information field of reality and isn't made of anything, show me where all the obamas are in a hydrogen atom

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:03:11 UTC No. 16184524

>>16184516
>And yet the word obama doesn't exist in the information field of reality
What in the absolute fuck are you talking about. It's information held in people's brains and it's the name of somebody that actually exists.
Every aspect of it is material.
>>16184516
>show me where all the obamas are in a hydrogen atom
Holy shit anon, are you a fucking Christ-tard?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:05:36 UTC No. 16184529

>>16184516
>hydrogen atom
But you don't even believe hydrogen atoms exists anon. You think it's nothing more than a word.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:18:55 UTC No. 16184538

It's a question of a greater and lesser infinity, I've done my research, I know what's up. Pic rel.

-BT

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:23:12 UTC No. 16184540

>>16184524
> It's information held in people's brains
Except this information is not made of words or numbers, because words and numbers don't physically exist, there are no obama words zipping around your brain
>it's the name of somebody that actually exists
It's a made up nomenclature of an abstract figure in a specific linguistic framework, there are no names or numbers in any of the infinitesimal constituents making up that person, because reality is not made of words and numbers

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:26:46 UTC No. 16184544

>>16184540
Cum - is made up - it doesn't make it any less real.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:27:15 UTC No. 16184546

>>16184332
Yes, certain numbers you cannot speak. Certain numbers won't fit on your computer. Certain numbers are not possible to exist in the observable Universe. That's reality.

And yet imagination can take shortcuts to any place, any time, any number because it is the greatest force in this Universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:33:35 UTC No. 16184556

>>16184544
>lose argument
>instantly start talking about cum
OP is a faggot as always

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:37:31 UTC No. 16184563

>>16184546
>And yet imagination can take shortcuts to any place, any time, any number because it is the greatest force in this Universe
Wrong. Love is the greatest force in the Universe

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:38:48 UTC No. 16184565

/thread>>16184544

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:40:08 UTC No. 16184566

Awwwwww>>16184556

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:42:42 UTC No. 16184569

>>16184412
Your skull is shaped like a rock climbing hold, isn’t it?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:55:58 UTC No. 16184591

>>16184569
jesus fuck that's funny

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:56:05 UTC No. 16184592

>>16184563
Perhaps, but I would say love itself is strongly based on the imagination.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:57:25 UTC No. 16184593

>>16184444
>because reality isn't a quantitative system
did you miss the part where everything is made up of waves that are expressed in quantized packets

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:02:34 UTC No. 16184599

>>16184540
the number 1 is a concrete representation of something that exists. You can take any one thing in real life and say that it corresponds to one. Numbers aren't made the fuck up, they're representations that came from trying to rationalize and describe reality. There is no chicken and egg with math you fucking retard. Reality came first, then people, then numbers. Want to know how that works? Because one corresponds to one object, 2 corresponds to 2 objects, and the entire abstract framework of mathematics is derived and builds upon the fundamental observable principles of reality.

Yours is such a stupid fucking argument because you think you can confuse everyone and look smart by handwaving language as if it's all made the fuck up. It's not, and if it was, we wouldn't fucking exist. Even your thoughts are fucking real. Ever think of that? Your thoughts are actual physical things traveling along actual physical power lines connected to each other. Some of those actual physical things came together to understand that the number one is a real fucking thing. Even animals can understand this. You are dumber than a fucking horse. You are less than an animal.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:03:00 UTC No. 16184600

>>16184592
You can imagine loving someone but that's not the same as actually loving

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:13:43 UTC No. 16184612

>>16184569
Jealous?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:18:30 UTC No. 16184619

>>16184593
Quantization is a mathematical abstraction, reality doesn't have to quantify anything, it's a purely qualitative system that just runs its course, it assigns no names or numbers to anything
>>16184599
>the number 1 is a concrete representation of something that exists.
representation of something =/= something
Rick and Morty aren't actually running around inside your tv

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:24:20 UTC No. 16184626

>>16184600
I didn't mean that. I meant more that the concept of love is imagination. Look at animals, they do all the things we do, they mate, care for each other and their kids (not always, yes) without that concept. We sort of made it more than it already was by the power of the imagination.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:28:40 UTC No. 16184630

>>16184626
>I meant more that the concept of love is imagination.
I hope that someday you find that special someone who will change your mind on this.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:41:22 UTC No. 16184640

Mouf.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:47:04 UTC No. 16184644

>>16184630
Why would they? I've been in love. I don't think my way of looking at it diminishes it in any way, it is what it is.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 16:16:47 UTC No. 16184678

>>16184619
It literally does. When you have one proton that exists it is assigned a singular existence by the fact that it can't just fucking duplicate itself. Reality is inherently quantitative and no amount of self delusion on your part about the proper meaning of the semantics will change that. That's why math describes reality, because reality is quantitative. I would have loved to argue about this with you when I was dumb fucking teenager with something to prove, but you are so singularly quantitatively stupid I will concede that you are right anon, reality is qualitative and that is why when we want to understand how to get to the moon we talk amongst ourselves and apply the socratic method to open dialogue debates in the control room

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 17:08:18 UTC No. 16184730

>>16184332
The natural numbers are absolutely not infinite. Perhaps you're thinking of the extended natural numbers. For every natural number n, n < n+1, therefore natural numbers are finite.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 17:12:39 UTC No. 16184739

>>16184730
Kys now

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:27:35 UTC No. 16184826

>>16184678
>When you have one proton
A what of what? How do you know it's not two elephants? Oh wait, that's right, it's because you assigned arbitrary words to it to refer to something in a made-up linguistic framework, since the words themselves are made of nothing and have no meaning on their own!
>it is assigned a singular existence by the fact that it can't just fucking duplicate itself
But every proton is completely identical to every other proton, how do you know it's not one proton duplicating itself?
>Reality is inherently quantitative
representative with quantities =/= made of quantities
>That's why math describes reality
No, it doesn't, it predicts behaviour by approximating observations into an abstract numerical framework within which you can apply arithmetic transformations, it has no qualitative descriptive power nor does it describe the nature of the behaviours which it approximates, it's just an imitation model, like a painting, made to approximate information into more concise and easily conveyable models and metaphors

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:32:37 UTC No. 16184832

>>16184826
Don't forget your disrespect to the chickens and simulation

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:35:10 UTC No. 16184837

>>16184826
Like you want. Right. You earned these bodies. It's your problem. Nothing happens out of order in this world my friend.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:36:59 UTC No. 16184841

>>16184826
If you knew the total of what you earned, and your specific 0% chance of escape, you'd be pissed off.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:16 UTC No. 16184847

>>16184826
You're on a pleasure cruise right now which will come to an end. You're lost in the clouds living a fake life. That's what you have - that's nature - but when that's over I see no less than 1000 years with nuts as food, super pain and even worse bodies.

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 18:45:07 UTC No. 16184862

Don't give me all this shitty shit about how you're gonna betray the system, how you're filled with hate and against nature like everything's not fair and set in stone. You are driven by fear, you fear what you owe and have owed, and that's all you are - weak weak people. And that's honest - you will pay for your immorality in full one day. If I go-to your hell, I'll keep that in mind. Plus I won't be busy I'll likely batter you in fights all the time. Trust me, my revenge that spans centuries more will come to you in full.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:13:30 UTC No. 16185166

>>16184540
>Except this information is not made of words or numbers
Lol, NO FUCKING SHIT ANON.
YES CAPTAIN OBVIOUS . NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.
>because words and numbers don't physically exist,
WRONG!!! THOSE WORDS AND NUMBERS ARE ENCODED AS NEURAL STATES IN A PHYSICAL BRAIN! OK! THEY DESCRIBE THINGS THAT EXIST! ARE THERE TWO OR FIVE EYES IN YOUR HEAD?
>there are no obama words zipping around your brain
ANON CAN'T CODE IN C++ BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STRING VARIABLES ZIPPING AROUND IN HIS BRAIN!!!
ANON CAN'T GET LAID BECAISE THERE ARE NO SOCIAL SKILLS ZIPPING AROUND IN HIS BRAIN!!!
>It's a made up nomenclature of an abstract figure in a specific linguistic framework
YOUR BRAIN DOESN' EXIST DUDE!!
IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN A LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCT!!!
YOU'R PENIS DOESN"T EXIST DUDE!!
IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN A LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCT!!!

Barkon at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:15:28 UTC No. 16185168

>>16185166
How do I purchase crack through dimensions so it's delivered in a nice little box somewhere close.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:24:34 UTC No. 16185182

>>16184826
>A what of what? How do you know it's not two elephants? Oh wait, that's right, it's because you assigned arbitrary words to it to refer to something in a made-up linguistic framework, since the words themselves are made of nothing and have no meaning on their own!
So according to you, everything you're saying is completely meaningless nonsense.
Yet, you insist that your viewpoint is true.
You're a self-contradicting moron lol.
>No, it doesn't
You don't get any say in the matter anon. According to you, everything you say is of zero meaning or bearing on reality because it's nothing more than a made-up linguistic framework of subjectivity. You're contradicting yourself by even having this debate with people. You clearly don't even believe in what you preach or you're too stupid to notice the contradiction.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:26:30 UTC No. 16185188

>>16185168
>How do I purchase crack through dimensions so it's delivered in a nice little box somewhere close.
Crack is nothing more than a linguistic contract anon. It doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:29:11 UTC No. 16185194

>>16184730
>Perhaps you're thinking of the extended natural numbers
So natural numbers you pseudointellectual retard lol.
No, infinity doesn't actually exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:37:23 UTC No. 16185208

>>16184332
>If we introduce a greater infinity, to count the natural numbers
We don't need a greater infinity, we can just use the one we had before
Just drop powerset bro

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 22:41:21 UTC No. 16185217

>>16185208
Which directly creates greater infinities.
Infinity doesn't exist. Set theory is useless stupid idiocy and you aren't intelligent.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:08:12 UTC No. 16185252

>>16185217
Nah, we can have just one

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:13:12 UTC No. 16185261

>>16185252
nope.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:17:08 UTC No. 16185267

>>16185261
One (1) infinity

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:19:12 UTC No. 16185271

Why is all the bait here either about infinity, dark matter or /pol/ shit. At least come up with something new

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:24:57 UTC No. 16185277

>>16185267
Infinity doesn't exist anon.
>>16185271
>Why is all the bait here either about infinity, dark matter or /pol/ shit. At least come up with something new
There's plenty of other bullshit too for you to choose from anon.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:28:48 UTC No. 16185280

>>16185277
We can have one very small infinity

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:34:59 UTC No. 16185287

>>16185280
lol

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 23:56:33 UTC No. 16185319

>>16185287
Youre the mean mom who shouts, "NO ICE CREAM! IF WE GET ONE, THEN EVERYONE HAS TO GET ONE, AND IT WILL NEVER STOP!"
And Im the cool dad who says "We can just get one little one"
Pic related its you

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 00:24:42 UTC No. 16185351

>>16184369
Imagine being filtered this hard by the difference between abstract thought and reality kwab

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 00:46:08 UTC No. 16185378

>>16185351
Nothing you just said has any meaning because it's just a linguistic construct.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 01:04:05 UTC No. 16185401

>>16185378
And yet it was understood it because the arbitrary linguistic construct I used to write it is a useful tool for representing the fact that you're a faggot. Much like numbers and reality, there's no intrinsic metric the universe uses to store this info, but luckily I can convey it in infinitely many ways through any made up language I choose.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 01:37:08 UTC No. 16185425

>>16185401
>Nothing you just said has any meaning because it's just a linguistic construct..

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 01:55:45 UTC No. 16185443

>>16184332
Yes, that's what infinite means, regardless of the kind of infinity. What's your question?

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 02:38:29 UTC No. 16185482

>>16185443
Yep, so infinity doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:15:48 UTC No. 16185514

>>16185182
I accept your concession, you can collect your anti-psychotics on the way out

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:49:13 UTC No. 16185545

>>16185514
>I accept your concession
Lol, whenever somebody says that it is code for "I have no argument".
>you can collect your anti-psychotics on the way out
Said the autistic retard with no argument who unironically replies with "I accept your concession" and posts Weeb images.
Also, according to you, nothing you have ever said has any meaning or value since it's purely imaginary. So according to you, you yourself live in a psych ward.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 04:37:14 UTC No. 16185588

>>16185545
>whenever somebody says that it is code for "I have no argument".
You didn't present an argument, just autistic screeching, you handed over the W with no resistance, ergo you conceded

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 04:44:53 UTC No. 16185598

>>16185588
That isn't a valid argument anon.
What you just said has no meaning because it's nothing more than a linguistic construct.
According to you.
Once again, you post autistic weeb pictures.
Once again, you're upset.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 04:47:40 UTC No. 16185599

>>16184474
Brother, are you literally retarded? Have you really been this filtered by basic arithmetic that you are having map-territory problems with counting? Jesus Christ man.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 05:58:32 UTC No. 16185689

>>16185598
>What you just said has no meaning because it's nothing more than a linguistic construct.
And it has meaning within this linguistic framework, dumbass

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 06:22:22 UTC No. 16185702

>>16185689
>And it has meaning within this linguistic framework, dumbass
Nope, it has absolutely zero meaning according to you. It's nothing more than a made up linguistic construct of subjective nothingness.
>>16185599
>Brother, are you literally retarded?
Nope, but you certainly are.
>Have you really been this filtered by basic arithmetic that you are having map-territory problems with counting? Jesus Christ man.
That doesn't mean anything because it's a linguistic construct according to you.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 06:39:16 UTC No. 16185716

>>16184421
Because as anon just pointed out for you, infinity describes the lack of a largest number rather than a specific number itself.

>>16184426
You don't, you count without any end point, hence the set itself is ordered, countable and without end rather than just a mixed list of properties like an endless set of names for colors.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 07:08:28 UTC No. 16185733

>>16185702
>Nope, it has absolutely zero meaning according to you
Zero meaning outside the framework wherein the abstracts are constructed, yes

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:15:49 UTC No. 16185891

>>16185733
>Zero meaning outside the framework wherein the abstracts are constructed, yes
Nope, zero meaning full stop. According to you, everything you say is a meaningless hallucination of nothing of no use to anyone.
You are nothing more than a crack head describing his hallucinations. According to you.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:24:44 UTC No. 16185907

Fools.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:37:34 UTC No. 16185929

>>16185891
The butthurt is strong in this one

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:40:18 UTC No. 16185936

>>16185929
Not an argument anon.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:44:14 UTC No. 16185941

>>16185936
I never argued, I stated all the facts while you continued your autistic screeching

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:48:48 UTC No. 16185944

>>16185941
They argue that number is outright the greatest infinity

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:52:35 UTC No. 16185951

>>16185941
Even if numbers are made up in some mystical way like the against argument suggests, the concept of a greater infinity is enough to count them.

Thus, the against argument is just blowing hot hair and proving they have 10~IQ

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 15:32:16 UTC No. 16186264

>>16185941
you stated that the facts aren't knowable, retard. Which is the opposite of reality, and therefore false. If only you had written this down and figured it out quantitatively, you might have seen the issue

I'm now a different anon btw, the one that originally made fun of you for being retarded. The fact you can't seem to understand the difference between mathematics as an objective framework and subjective linguistics suggests that you're, again, fucking retarded. And even if there were no logical contradictions in what you're saying, even if you were absolutely correct(you have to be a midwit or mentally ill to convince yourself of this, but I know you're probably autistic and cluster b and obviously not one of the smartest people here) you would STILL be retarded, because abstract subjective linguistic frameworks all refer to the same things and use basic syntactic structures that can be observed and correlated with other languages. You can STILL learn another language simply through exposure and relating real life objects to what other people are saying, because even the subjectivity inherent in language is underlied by concrete logical and mathematical structures that enable them to be useful in the first place, something you'd INTUITIVELY KNOW, IF YOU WEREN'T STUPID.

But go on. Reality is qualitative. It's not quantitative. That's why even the gold standard for qualitative relationships is actually just a more complex quantitative framework. As if there's anything in this world that isn't just an outcropping of numbers and concrete, quantitative relationships. Handwave this again and prove your complete lack of understanding, and sub-par thinking. The best part is I know you're the one with something to prove, and yet, what you prove over and over again is that you are an irredeemable dumbass.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 16:11:47 UTC No. 16186333

>>16186264
Redpill me on infity. How many numbers are there? Can we have more than that?

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 16:12:42 UTC No. 16186335

>>16186333
Ga'qle is the greatest amount.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 16:14:02 UTC No. 16186338

>>16186335
There's such things as too great. Gi'qle is too great.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 16:15:28 UTC No. 16186342

>>16186335
About 3.2 trillion.

About 400,000 sets of 4000 quadrillion in system.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:09:30 UTC No. 16186395

>>16186264
TL;DR

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:16:29 UTC No. 16186403

>>16184332
Any natural number can clearly be defind as a Dedekind Cut.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:21:10 UTC No. 16186412

>>16186403
I'm not being cheap with you, faggot. What do you want me to do? Make a long list? I'll keep some to myself.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:24:27 UTC No. 16186421

>>16185702
Who said anything about linguistics? There are obviously linguistic symbols that refer to counting numbers, but the counting numbers themselves are not the symbols. They are what the symbols refer to.

It's the same problem with the idea that numbers are a materialist concept. It's obvious that the number "2" doesn't have some particular material thing that it is referring to. It's neither linguistic nor materialist.

Numbers just are their own abstraction outside of these domains. It's the same way that rote logical truths don't have a dependency on what language they are written in for their truth value.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:26:18 UTC No. 16186422

>>16186403
I'm already making a school for you, a corporation for the best of the best which might include all of you but it's meant to be good at 50,000 limit members and I'm not sure if we're going to have to make multiple corps. It might be one corp but the test is harshunt. I will be completely open regarding tech, maybe... Who leads? Who do you tell and who don't you tell. Perhaps it's best if I know that and give you exactly what you need. It's not so simple on the outside. And on the topic of your businesses and worlds, you should finish my school before you start placing stuff in different dimensions, or even this one.

Barkon at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:32:26 UTC No. 16186435

>>16186422
A corp is like the voice of all the best going on in a government controlled state. Think of this properly because I can't explain it here, it needs a lot of readjustment. We will have a corp to begin of 2500 strong members, including people out there.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 17:37:36 UTC No. 16186442

>>16185702
Yes, nothing has any meaning. Too bad, you just have to live with it.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 03:02:11 UTC No. 16187258

>>16184444
Checked