Mathematics is also subjective, you make a subjective determination of numerical value when ascribing a number to something.
Like, if I were to say ‘there’s two wheelbarrows,’ it’s entirely subjective that I’ve determined each wheelbarrow as having a value of ‘one’ or not counting them as one singular entity.
I’m sad that thread was deleted. I made some excellent points worthy of the forum in Rome. Socrates would be proud.
Yes and no. Even Principia Mathematica, which lays out the foundations of modern mathematics, was technically built on a set of axioms… and axiom is a fancy way of saying “assumptions we are 99% sure are always true”.
I mean heck, imaginary numbers are a wacky hack that somehow reliably works. You’ll never find ⅈ on a number line. It’s everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Spooky.
Mathematics however follows rules of logic like A is not NOT A.
And that wheelbarrow objection is really being pedantic. If I put a wheelbarrow into your front lawn, are you really going to argue about whether or not it’s one wheelbarrow?
And what determines that, exactly?
What determines A from being different from B? Or A being the same as another A? It’s all work of assumption and individual interpretation, which is of course subjective.
The fact that these things can be argued proves there’s an element of subjectivity to them, they’re not wholly objective.
The fact that it does have an element of being pedantic makes it subjective.
What determines a wheelbarrow but individual subjectivity? What determines a singular wheelbarrow from two but not the subjectivity that you bring with your assumptions?
Someone who has no concept of a wheelbarrow would inherently look upon it different or count it different from someone who does have that cultural concept.
That’s my point.
They would still know there’s one object there. It doesn’t become two because they might not know what it was
Depends on the wheelbarrow, though.
If we have two entirely different kinds of wheelbarrows, ones that look radically different from each other yet hold the exact same function…
Who’s to determine they hold the same value?
One might be smaller, one might be larger, we make a judgement call when we count them as only one singular object and choose to ignore the details for simplicity’s sake.
If I put two apples in front of you, regardless of what how you feel or how many you think are there, the two apples will remain
Making it objectively true.
What determines an apple but our cultural input and understanding of what makes an apple?
Counting the concept of an ‘apple’ holds no more objectivity than counting atoms.
If we really wanted to, we could entirely reject the idea of an ‘apple’ and just look at it as a cluster of atoms, or we could determine value to it in some other way.
How we determine whether it is an apple or not and the value that pertains to it because of that is entirely cultural and based on individual perception, therefore subjective.
Doesn’t matter what value you put on it. The two apples or one wheelbarrow will always remain the same.
You’re not understanding what I mean.
What determines an apple?
What determines an apple as singular?
These are based upon judgement calls by the individual doing the counting, not on any objective fact.
There is no objective definition for an ‘apple’ just as there’s no objective definition for a ‘wheelbarrow.’
These are concepts we created social definitions for, and because of that we create subjective value for them.
Mathematics is a tool we apply, not an edict of objective truth.
Same as science, this is also a tool we utilize to gain understanding of our surroundings.
Neither preach objective truth, they’re all tools we use.
I understand what you mean and I’m telling you you’re wrong 
Ah, still salty from earlier I see.
Gotcha, won’t waste time in your obvious attempt to rile me because you’re too pathetically emotional to argue with me in good faith.
Weird, usually you’re not like this, must be a bad day or something idk.
The entire point is, you can feel however you want about how many actual wheelbarrows or apples there are in the scenarios. The ACTUAL number of items only changes when we take something away or add to them
You can subjectively feel you have a million apples while only two are on the table. Doesn’t matter because only the two will remain unless we take one or both away or more are added.
That’s what you’re not getting
Also, breathing in and out slowly helps. Should try it sometime. Works wonders. Got to learn to relax bud, it’s just a silly forum.
Pythagoras used math to create a whole religion. Through math, he reasoned there must be a Grand Architect of the Universe, and that’s how freemasonry came to be.
Math and science have been used as spiritual tools. There’s a reason the Higgs boson is called “The God Particle.” Or why quantum entaglement is such an interesting theory.
And in that scenario, killing her over something as trivial as a cosmetic change was extremely disproportionate.
And you just claimed something besides gravity and physics is objectively true, proving that you actually see more things as objective than those.
That discerning truth is sometimes difficult doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist or can’t be discerned. Disagreement does not always mean everything is relative/that nothing is universally true.
Disagreement can happen because people either 1) Don’t have full knowledge 2) Have differing underlying assumptions about reality 3) Have an agenda they prioritize over truth, so they deny/lie for it 4) Any combination of the previous three.
However, one view of reality may still be true, which, to the degree that it is true, would mean others aren’t true.
In which case all of our positions are equally valid, including mine, and none should be critiqued. (The Light was Tuyralyon’s savior, Xe’ra was just his commanding officer and guardian angel).
Illidaniel only caused a cosmetic change to Xe’ra. Your entire reason for your anger is over a cosmetic change.
You are mad at Illidan because you do not like how he transmogged Xe’ra.
Calm down, I was speaking hypothetically about Cursewords scenario when I said “cosmetic change” there.
And a Fel-to-Light change vs blasting a living body into inanimate pieces are two very different things (the latter is much further from cosmetic than the former).
And I was speaking hypothetically about a rational reason for your irrational obsession.
Right.
We’ve never once seen a fel-to-light forced conversion undone.
We’ve seen a shattered Xe’ra repaired, and we know the physical shells of Windchimes are utterly irrelevant because they just reform in the Light. Illidaniel mildly and temporarily inconvenienced Xe’ra.
Xe’ra’s really a jerk, thank you for highlighting how what Illidan did wasn’t so bad in comparison.
With that out of the way, your Illidan Crusade can finally end.
We’ve never seen a fel-to-light forced conversion done either (before anyone points to Illidan, he was still the same person during and after Xe’ra’s attempted Lightforging. And Lothraxion is still up in the air as of typing this).
Xe’ra’s core was intact when she was revived/reassembled. But it was in pieces after she was hit by Illidan’s edgelord beams. And I wonder if using what’s left of her as a battery for the Netherlight Crucible would effect her reforming.
The rest of your comment was a poor-quality strawman, not worth the effort of retaliation.