Philosophical debates and logic puzzles

[SvenSvensonov]

Hey everyone, as has been talked about by @Nihonjin1051 and @Jungibaaz (albeit from a hypothetical standpoint), I'm starting this thread to promote philosophical debates and logical thinking. I feel this is something that can improve the quality of contributions here on PDF... which is at times devoid of rational thought. I invite anyone to participate, but please keep the conversations relevant. Also, I'll start things off with a few logic puzzles. Feel free to offer your own discussions, puzzles and solutions!!!

The goal here isn't to unravel any great mysteries, it's to think more in depth and get a bit more brain excersise then usual. And remember - there is no right or wrong answer, no smart or stupid question, trying is all I ask!

Enjoy!!!

SvenSvensonov

MILK JUGS:

A milkman has two empty jugs: a three gallon jug and a five gallon jug. How can he measure exactly one gallon without wasting any milk?

TRUE STATEMENTS:

A. The number of false statements here is one.

B. The number of false statements here is two.

C. The number of false statements here is three.

D. The number of false statements here is four.

Which of the above statements is true?

LOGIC POEM:

The following verse spells out a word, letter by letter. "My first" refers to the word's first letter, and so on. What's the word that this verse describes?

My first is in fish but not in snail
My second in rabbit but not in tail
My third in up but not down
My fourth in tiara not in crown
My fifth in tree you plainly see
My whole a food for you and me

THREE BOXES:

There are three boxes, one contains only apples, one contains only oranges, and one contains both apples and oranges. The boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of the box it labels. Opening just one box, and without looking in the box, you take out one piece of fruit. By looking at the fruit, how can you immediately label all of the boxes correctly.

Which box did you open and how can you be sure to label all boxes correctly

BURNING ROPES:

A rope burns non-uniformly for exactly one hour. How do you measure 45 minutes, given two such ropes?

FOUR DIGIT NUMBER:

What is the four-digit number in which the first digit is one-third the second, the third is the sum of the first and second, and the last is three times the second?

@Nihonjin1051 I'm game for a philosophical debate, assuming it doesn't relate to anything political.

Actually, I've got an early topic that relates to my job. Over the Christmas period, when I tried to quit PDF, I got both a raise, increased stress and increased responsibilities, my increased responsibilities relate to the military usage of cybernetics - mechanical human parts (sorry, can't go too much further than that). My question to you is this, 1.) do you consider this ethical? 2.) At what point do we cease to be human? 3.) Will this become a new form of eugenics that sees people alter themselves to match certain human phenotypes and conditions, ultimately leading to a more perfect being - at least in their own eyes? I can't help but be reminded of early eugenics tries with selective breeding and to me this isn't too much more different.

Also, what does the ability to prolong our lives contribute to the trajectory of human populations? Do we begin to thin out our poor, those who can't afford such modification and opt for a more healthy, but smaller and longer living population? What about the impact of prolonged human live's on our worlds resources?

@Nihonjin1051 - thoughts or topics (if this one doesn't interest you, or anyone else, or you have limited expertise and can't contribute with enough quality... I have plenty of subjects like that and like plenty of other subjects that I would be willing to debate)?

@Armstrong @levina @Chinese-Dragon - and anyone else interested in such debates!

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I often find my "head in the clouds", but now wonder whether those clouds are even real! What do the people of PDF think about the concept of our universe not being real, a hologram or an artificial construct of our own consciousness? Is everything we interact with nothing more than the same we see on a computer, or an illusion of our own thoughts? Do we even exist as we think we do? Perhaps we are someones else's reality they are imagining with a conscious created in someone else's head and only think we can think? Thoughts?

Are You Living in a Simulation?

Physicists Believe Our Universe Is One Big Hologram, And They May Have Spotted the Pixels

Are we just a 3D hologram created by 2D information stored at the edge of the universe?

Perhaps our reality is a 2 dimensional mathematical equation?

My second question is this. We talk a lot about morality here, each religion, culture and country having their own judicial practices and concepts of right or wrong, but which is the universal "right" methodology or approach?

"Essentially, we'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies (the Trolly Problem is the best demonstration of this). At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time."

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve

*Also, for those not familiar with some of the topics that I hope will find themselves here, assuming people actually take hold of this thread, I will provide reference material and articles on the topics, and usually from many different angles and biases to provided a well-rounded perspective on the topics (again, assuming more than one source or perspective can be found).

**If you need a jump start, can't think of a question, I pulled a few from this article, perhaps you can use Gizmodo or Io9 as a springboard too.

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve

Finally, for those that don't think philosophy is important in an age of science:

Why Physicists Need Philosophers

I'll debate the merits of this too! And please, feel free to contribute your own content!!!

@Nihonjin1051 - even if this thread is just a back-and-forth between you and I, hell, I'm all for it (two fellow psych practitioners picking each other's brains! Sounds like fun!), but feel free and please invite any others you believe to be of high quality or those you think have an interest in philosophical debates!

@Gufi - I'll invite you too!

 

[Jungibaaz]

Man you've done a great thing by making this thread, I'm pretty excited about this. Alright so I've attempted all these.

SPOILER- Solutions + failures and general ramblings below.

Hey everyone, as has been talked about by @Nihonjin1051 and @Jungibaaz (albeit from a hypothetical standpoint), I'm starting this thread to promote philosophical debates and logical thinking. I feel this is something that can improve the quality of contributions here on PDF... which is at times devoid of rational thought. I invite anyone to participate, but please keep the conversations relevant. Also, I'll start things off with a few logic puzzles. Feel free to offer your own discussions, puzzles and solutions!!!

Enjoy!!!

SvenSvensonov

MILK JUGS:

A milkman has two empty jugs: a three gallon jug and a five gallon jug. How can he measure exactly one gallon without wasting any milk?

TRUE STATEMENTS:

A. The number of false statements here is one.

B. The number of false statements here is two.

C. The number of false statements here is three.

D. The number of false statements here is four.

Which of the above statements is true?

THREE BOXES:

There are three boxes, one contains only apples, one contains only oranges, and one contains both apples and oranges. The boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of the box it labels. Opening just one box, and without looking in the box, you take out one piece of fruit. By looking at the fruit, how can you immediately label all of the boxes correctly.

Which box did you open and how can you be sure to label all boxes correctly

BURNING ROPES:

A rope burns non-uniformly for exactly one hour. How do you measure 45 minutes, given two such ropes?

FOUR DIGIT NUMBER:

What is the four-digit number in which the first digit is one-third the second, the third is the sum of the first and second, and the last is three times the second?

@Nihonjin1051 I'm game for a philosophical debate, assuming it doesn't relate to anything political.

@Armstrong @levina @Chinese-Dragon - and anyone else interested in such debates!

MILK JUGS:

Due to some very valuable programming experience, I think visualising this was made easier. The first method I came up with is most likely invalid. It involves half filling the jugs. Fill the first and second jug to half each, so 1.5 in the 3 gallon, and 2.5 in the 5 gallon. And then empty the 1.5 gallon into the 5 gallon jug already containing 2.5 gallons, so that the larger jug now contains, 4 gallons in total. Then empty as much of the larger jug containing 4 gallons into the smaller jug containing 3 gallons, thus leaving the smaller jug full with 3 gallons, and 1 gallon left in the 5 gallon jug. However, this was done with the assumption that the jugs are uniformly shaped, and the ability to measure half way is granted, so I dumped this method.

The method that works is, take both empty jugs. Fill the smaller, up to 3 gallons. Empty the 3 gallons into the larger 5 gallon. So then you have. Fill the 3 gallon again, empty as much of it as possible, into the larger jug that only has capacity for 2 more gallons. The result is, one 5 gallon filled to the brim and one gallon measurement in the smaller jug.

TRUE STATEMENTS:

I got two answers for this again, if the statement is a series of time dependant statements that depends on the existence of each other in chronological orders, ie, after the existence of statement A, there is one false statement, after the existence of B, there are two. Thus the answer in this case would be D. But I fear I might have misinterpreted the question.

If one of the statements HAS to be true, and the above relationship I guessed is wrong, then the answer is C. There have to be only 3 false statements.

THREE BOXES:

This one becomes easier if you remember two basic facts, no matter what you pick, there are only two outcomes, apples or oranges. And every box is labelled incorrectly, hence the 'Apples & Oranges' label is on a box that contains either apples or oranges exclusively.

So I would pick the one with apples and oranges label. Which ever fruit is returned is the correct content of the box, ie if the fruit I got was an apple, then the box I got it from contains apples only, vice versa for oranges. That means then that one of the other two boxes contains apples/oranges (depending on which was returned from the initial pick) only and one contains both. Assuming once again that both boxes are labelled incorrectly, meaning that if I got an apple, first time round, then of the two boxes left, the one with the label 'orange' (the fruit I didn't pick) will contain both apples and oranges, since it has to be labelled falsely, the last box labelled with the fruit I did pick (apples) will contain only oranges.

The outcome leaves only two possible methods, depending on which fruit is picked, the logic is the same.

ROPE BURN:

I need some clarification on this one @SvenSvensonov. This was a rather abstract one. Is it legal to burn the rope from one end, both ends, half way, and burn them both in those configurations at the same time?

FOUR DIGIT NUMBER:

1349!

Let's call the first one 1/3, the second we call 1. The third is the sum of the first two, hence the third is 4/3 and the last is 3 times the second hence 3. So the numbers are:

1/3, 1, 4/3, 3.

Common factor of 3, multiple through by 3 and you get 1,3,4,9. I did use algebraical notation, but realised I'd need to dump it because if the factor chosen was not 1, but 2, it would carry from multiplying it with the 9 and alter the third digit.

LOGIC POEM:

The following verse spells out a word, letter by letter. "My first" refers to the word's first letter, and so on. What's the word that this verse describes?

My first is in fish but not in snail
My second in rabbit but not in tail
My third in up but not down
My fourth in tiara not in crown
My fifth in tree you plainly see
My whole a food for you and me

I'm lost on this one. I'll leave it for now. I highly appreciate this thread though, good job.

I often find my "head in the clouds", but now wonder whether those clouds are even real! What do the people of PDF think about the concept of our universe not being real, a hologram or an artificial construct of our own consciousness? Is everything we interact with nothing more than the same we see on a computer, or an illusion of our own thoughts? Do we even exist as we think we do? Perhaps we are someones else's reality they are imagining with a conscious created in someone else's head and only think we can think? Thoughts?

Are You Living in a Simulation?

Physicists Believe Our Universe Is One Big Hologram, And They May Have Spotted the Pixels

Are we just a 3D hologram created by 2D information stored at the edge of the universe?

Perhaps our reality is a 2 dimensional mathematical equation?

My second question is this. We talk a lot about morality here, each religion, culture and country having their own judicial practices and concepts of right or wrong, but which is the universal "right" methodology or approach?

"Essentially, we'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies (the Trolly Problem is the best demonstration of this). At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time."

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve

*Also, for those not familiar with some of the topics that I hope will find themselves here, assuming people actually take hold of this thread, I will provide reference material and articles on the topics, and usually from many different angles and biases to provided a well-rounded perspective on the topics (again, assuming more than one source or perspective can be found).

**If you need a jump start, can't think of a question, I pulled a few from this article, perhaps you can use Gizmodo or Io9 as a springboard too.

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve

Finally, for those that don't think philosophy is important in an age of science:

Why Physicists Need Philosophers

I'll debate the merits of this too! And please, feel free to contribute your own content!!!

@Nihonjin1051 - even if this thread is just a back-and-forth between you and I, hell, I'm all for it (two fellow psych practitioners picking each other's brains! Sounds like fun!), but feel free and please invite any others you believe to be of high quality or those you think have an interest in philosophical debates!

@Gufi - I'll invite you too!

It's 2 am here, but I've bookmarked this thread and post, so I will continue with this tomorrow.

 

[Aepsilons]

O my! What a trove of wonders ! lol. Thanks for starting this buddy @SvenSvensonov !!!

 

[Jungibaaz]

O my! What a trove of wonders ! lol. Thanks for starting this buddy @SvenSvensonov !!!

I've never been so excited by a thread on PDF.

 

[Aepsilons]

Hey everyone, as has been talked about by @Nihonjin1051 and @Jungibaaz (albeit from a hypothetical standpoint), I'm starting this thread to promote philosophical debates and logical thinking. I feel this is something that can improve the quality of contributions here on PDF... which is at times devoid of rational thought. I invite anyone to participate, but please keep the conversations relevant. Also, I'll start things off with a few logic puzzles. Feel free to offer your own discussions, puzzles and solutions!!!

Enjoy!!!

SvenSvensonov

MILK JUGS:

A milkman has two empty jugs: a three gallon jug and a five gallon jug. How can he measure exactly one gallon without wasting any milk?

TRUE STATEMENTS:

A. The number of false statements here is one.

B. The number of false statements here is two.

C. The number of false statements here is three.

D. The number of false statements here is four.

Which of the above statements is true?

LOGIC POEM:

The following verse spells out a word, letter by letter. "My first" refers to the word's first letter, and so on. What's the word that this verse describes?

My first is in fish but not in snail
My second in rabbit but not in tail
My third in up but not down
My fourth in tiara not in crown
My fifth in tree you plainly see
My whole a food for you and me

THREE BOXES:

There are three boxes, one contains only apples, one contains only oranges, and one contains both apples and oranges. The boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of the box it labels. Opening just one box, and without looking in the box, you take out one piece of fruit. By looking at the fruit, how can you immediately label all of the boxes correctly.

Which box did you open and how can you be sure to label all boxes correctly

BURNING ROPES:

A rope burns non-uniformly for exactly one hour. How do you measure 45 minutes, given two such ropes?

FOUR DIGIT NUMBER:

What is the four-digit number in which the first digit is one-third the second, the third is the sum of the first and second, and the last is three times the second?

@Nihonjin1051 I'm game for a philosophical debate, assuming it doesn't relate to anything political.

Actually, I've got an early topic that relates to my job. Over the Christmas period, when I tried to quit PDF, I got both a raise, increased stress and increased responsibilities, my increased responsibilities relate to the military usage of cybernetics - mechanical human parts (sorry, can't go too much further than that). My question to you is this, 1.) do you consider this ethical? 2.) At what point do we cease to be human? 3.) Will this become a new form of eugenics that sees people alter themselves to match certain human phenotypes and conditions, ultimately leading to a more perfect being - at least in their own eyes? I can't help but be reminded of early eugenics tries with selective breeding and to me this isn't too much more different.

Also, what does the ability to prolong our lives contribute to the trajectory of human populations? Do we begin to thin out our poor, those who can't afford such modification and opt for a more healthy, but smaller and longer living population? What about the impact of prolonged human live's on our worlds resources?

@Nihonjin1051 - thoughts or topics (if this one doesn't interest you, or anyone else, or you have limited expertise and can't contribute with enough quality... I have plenty of subjects like that and like plenty of other subjects that I would be willing to debate)?

@Armstrong @levina @Chinese-Dragon - and anyone else interested in such debates!

@SvenSvensonov , this is deep. Deep as in the Marianas Trench. Permit me time to write up a worthy reply.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I've never been so excited by a thread on PDF.

I'll provide you with some clarification on the "Burning Ropes" as requested.

You asked:

"ROPE BURN:
I need some clarification on this one @SvenSvensonov. This was a rather abstract one. Is it legal to burn the rope from one end, both ends, half way, and burn them both in those configurations at the same time?"

The origional problem is:

BURNING ROPES:

A rope burns non-uniformly for exactly one hour. How do you measure 45 minutes, given two such ropes?

My help:

Sure, if that's how you want to proceed, then yes, you can burn one from both sides, one side or burn both at the same time, that is permitted. Half-way would not be acceptable though. Once the burn has started it can't be extinguished until the entire rope is burnt. Both will burn for exactly one hour, but their burn rates are erratic (or non-uniform). Starting with burning one from both ends will be a good step, but while that one's burning how would you proceed with the second rope? Would you watch the first burn, take a measurement of a rope that will not burn uniformly? Are you sure the second rope will burn in the same way? Do you light the second rope while the first still burns? Perhaps from both ends or just one? Perhaps you can wait until the first rope has burnt completely prior to lighting part of the second rope? All is legal when attempting to burn the two ropes, but beyond that no alternation is allowed (no cutting, twisting).

I'd recommend lighting one from both ends... but what to do about the other one?

Also @Jungibaaz - I'm providing a link to the solution, use it if needed, or to check your solution and refine your process. There is no shame ever in getting some help. That makes all people better. Also, damn good job on the rest, but be forewarned, they wont be so easy next time!

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!! - this is the solution to the Burning Rope problem!

Expand Your Mind (CLASSIC LOGIC PROBLEMS: SOLUTIONS)

The solutions to the rest of the logic problems posed and additional puzzles are found at this link:

Expand Your Mind (CLASSIC LOGIC PROBLEMS)





A few more lateral thinking puzzles, all taken from this site
(for those that need a hint or solution):

Lateral Thinking Puzzles - Preconceptions

1. You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:

1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.

Knowing that there can only be one passenger in your car, whom would you choose?

2. Acting on an anonymous phone call, the police raid a house to arrest a suspected murderer. They don't know what he looks like but they know his name is John and that he is inside the house. The police bust in on a carpenter, a lorry driver, a mechanic and a fireman all playing poker. Without hesitation or communication of any kind, they immediately arrest the fireman. How do they know they've got their man?

5. Bad Boy Bubby was warned by his mother never to open the cellar door or he would see things that he was not meant to see. One day while his mother was out he did open the cellar door. What did he see?

7. There are six eggs in the basket. Six people each take one of the eggs. How can it be that one egg is left in the basket?

Logic puzzles from the same site, this one is easy:

Logic Puzzles

1. The Camels

Four tasmanian camels traveling on a very narrow ledge encounter four tasmanian camels coming the other way.

As everyone knows, tasmanian camels never go backwards, especially when on a precarious ledge. The camels will climb over each other, but only if there is a camel sized space on the other side.

The camels didn't see each other until there was only exactly one camel's width between the two groups.

How can all camels pass, allowing both groups to go on their way, without any camel reversing?

These three are much more difficult: Analytical Puzzles - Very Difficult

1. The Emperor

You are the ruler of a medieval empire and you are about to have a celebration tomorrow. The celebration is the most important party you have ever hosted. You've got 1000 bottles of wine you were planning to open for the celebration, but you find out that one of them is poisoned.

The poison exhibits no symptoms until death. Death occurs within ten to twenty hours after consuming even the minutest amount of poison.

You have over a thousand slaves at your disposal and just under 24 hours to determine which single bottle is poisoned.

You have a handful of prisoners about to be executed, and it would mar your celebration to have anyone else killed.

What is the smallest number of prisoners you must have to drink from the bottles to be absolutely sure to find the poisoned bottle within 24 hours?

2. The Stark Raving Mad King

A stark raving mad king tells his 100 wisest men he is about to line them up and that he will place either a red or blue hat on each of their heads. Once lined up, they must not communicate amongst themselves. Nor may they attempt to look behind them or remove their own hat.

The king tells the wise men that they will be able to see all the hats in front of them. They will not be able to see the color of their own hat or the hats behind them, although they will be able to hear the answers from all those behind them.

The king will then start with the wise man in the back and ask "what color is your hat?" The wise man will only be allowed to answer "red" or "blue," nothing more. If the answer is incorrect then the wise man will be silently killed. If the answer is correct then the wise man may live but must remain absolutely silent.

The king will then move on to the next wise man and repeat the question.

The king makes it clear that if anyone breaks the rules then all the wise men will die, then allows the wise men to consult before lining them up. The king listens in while the wise men consult each other to make sure they don't devise a plan to cheat. To communicate anything more than their guess of red or blue by coughing or shuffling would be breaking the rules.

What is the maximum number of men they can be guaranteed to save?

3. The Fake Coin

You have twelve coins. You know that one is fake. The only thing that distinguishes the fake coin from the real coins is that its weight is imperceptibly different. You have a perfectly balanced scale. The scale only tells you which side weighs more than the other side.

What is the smallest number of times you must use the scale in order to always find the fake coin?

Use only the twelve coins themselves and no others, no other weights, no cutting coins, no pencil marks on the scale. etc.

These are modern coins, so the fake coin is not necessarily lighter.

Presume the worst case scenario, and don't hope that you will pick the right coin on the first attempt.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
Before answering this question, what is nothing and what is something?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
Before answering this question, what is nothing and what is something?

That's a fun one! I've always held the notion that nothing doesn't exist as anything more than a word, for something is greater then just physical objects. Something is anything. Anything at all. A physical object like a tree, an idea or even a concept, hell, even that which we think of as nothing, like a vacuum, still has measurable properties! Is that not something? Nothing is a concept, a state of limited activity and properties, conceptually it exists, but practically it fits into the catagory of something as an idea.

To me something is tangeable, etherial or measurable, something we humans can think about. Can you truly think about nothing? Or does that nothing become something when you imagine it?

It's a strange concept for the moment we realize we are looking at nothing, we make a measurement and thus turn it to something! Say we escape the bounds of our universe, into a void, a space of nothing... Would it be nothing if we can surmise where we are? does nothing not become a location at that point, which is a something? If we know where we are in nothing, is it still nothing?

My thoughs. Yours?

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

My thoughs. Yours?

Mine, nothing is an illusion, there is always something in a state of transformation or stability.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Mine, nothing is an illusion, there is always something in a state of transformation or stability.

Just to get us thinking a bit, let's assume we humans will never perceive or measure anything outside our universe. Is there nothing beyond our walls? If we can't measure, we can imaging but never confirm, our concept remaining both non and actual reality, like Schrödinger's cat, can we say nothing exists beyond the bounds of our time and space? Also, let's assume we live in the single universe theory, no multiple universes, no supreme beings either. I'll leave the possibility of more, non-percievable dimensions though.

What's beyond the walls of our universe?

Hey @LeveragedBuyout I know you don't come around much anymore, but like a few of us you wanted the discussions here to be more mentally stimulating. You interested in "throwing down" with us?

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

What's beyond the walls of our universe?

Numbers with out meaning, rules, or laws that have not yet been given to them.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Numbers with out meaning, rules, or laws that have not yet been given to them.

That assumes there will be anything to quantify. Perhaps nothing will be the reality, existing outside of any time or space, considering our hypothetical question assumed on one universe we are dealing with only one time and space, one set of laws to govern it.

But accepting you answer, we arrive at our next question:

8. What are numbers?

Do numbers actually exist? Are they merely clever heuristics to allow us to better organize ourselves, or is there encoded, natural numbers in our surroundings? Perhaps as if our universe was one big holographic simulation, all things being code.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Do numbers actually exist? Are they merely clever heuristics to allow us to better organize ourselves, or is there encoded, natural numbers in our surroundings? Perhaps as if our universe was one big holographic simulation, all things being code.

Take away the numbers and we can still add, subtract, multiply and divide. Not only that but the universe itself does those things. Numbers are just a natural universal language in understanding what is already there. but not everything can be code, that's why there is consciousness.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Take away the numbers and we can still add, subtract, multiply and divide. Not only that but the universe itself does those things. Numbers are just a natural universal language in understanding what is already there. but not everything can be code, that's why there is consciousness.

Consciousness is coded electronic signals put into rational thoughts via our, another entities consciousnesses, but what if an AI gains sentience? Sustained though code, able to learn adapt, process, do what humans do, does that code remain code or does it become human? Are our consciousnesses merely computer code leaving us as machines and not man?

Numbers are a heuristic, a clever concept to quantify data, at least that's my take. Assuming the universe is comprised of code, like a computer program, the numbers impart logic, give rise to actions and group like items into logical constructs. Perhaps numbers aren't needed for humans to quantify items but they were created for that very reason, the question now is whether or not they exist only in our minds or in nature too. Does nature, our universe recognize a pare of doves? Or are they birds alone, no quantification, no logical construction, not structure? Does nature impart logic into its constructs, symmetry, repetition?

@Nihonjin1051 - you've been absent for a while, your take?