| > They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand. He was talking about objective things that people fail to to intuitively understand. > In all sorts of places, not least counting things. So where? Just one. Give me where 1 exists so I can check it out. > Mathematics is about equivalences; No. Mathematics is about theorem generation. Going from axioms to theorems via proofs. Though some go from theorems to find axioms. > it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like". What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc. What's objective about 2-like? Feels abstract. Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand. |
Like I said, multiple objects objectively exist in nature.
> What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc.
That the theorems are true under those axioms is an objective fact.
> Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand.
As the great philosophers say, no U.