Quantity is Fundamental

Change:
If I am hot, and then cold, are quantities still in play? You mean quantities of heat and quantities of cold?
What about an intermediate state, a splash in a cold pool after a sauna? Isn't there a fraction of time when I would perceiving two quantities and not one? my feet in the cold water, my head still hot because of the hot steam in the sauna? Is there still a unit?
(This is, indeed, a tricky one. I guess that no one has ever survived to tell us what he perceived, and if he did he was too shocked to tell).

I confess that I feel a bit disoriented here.
Just hope that the above questions are not totally out of the scope of your hypothesis, because it'd mean I have understood nothing :listening:.

Can you give some examples of excatly where this quantity comes to play, I fail to see it in my everyday, also in all my friends everyday.

Recon, your thread is accurate if you mean and understand fundamentally ONE. When we think individually quantity, "more" is created. We can't create more. It's impossible. It's like trying to put ten gallons of water into a five gallon bucket, ha! There just "is" and no more than that. More and any thought of it creates waste and nature will take it's/her/god's course to maintain it's purity/balance.

I'm suggesting that every noun you use is a unity. I'm suggesting that every object you see is a unity. All pluralities are unities. If I say 5 birds, the number 5 is a unified plurality. THat's why and how we have ONE symbol for it. We can't think 5 unless we think of 5 ones put together.

With respect, I still think you aren't seeing what I'm saying here. It's not just numbers. That's an important point. I'm saying that the nature of all human thought is quantified. We think in unities, essences, singularities. It's not about how much. It's the fact that you say "ketchup" which is one word for this one abstraction "ketchup." Ketchup is one.

One sees, what one wants to see.

You didn't mention whether you thought that proof was just persuasion or not.

In mathematics, proofs are demonstrations, and if they're correct, then they're true, by definition, so, I guess that's not what you mean. My view is that human beings are social animals and, as such, they need to be able to effectively communicate about a consistent and common reality. The function of proofs here, in my opinion, would be to establish claims that no human can rationally disagree with. However, this view seems to have, at best, very limited applicability, for several reasons. For example, if somebody disagrees with this claim, then they're irrational by definition, and I think that's very difficult to support, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any way to privilege a logic or even to justify realism about logics. From this angle, intuitionism seems the safest bet, as only that which is demonstrable is acceptable in intuitionism. On the other hand, intuitionism may need to be severely restricted in order to remain consistent, due to various problems associated with choice, for example: Diaconescu's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Choice%20Principles.pdf

Well, there's some truth to that. You say "one sees." Why do we humans think of ourselves as one human? Why do we see our body with it all its parts as one body? Why do we see our personalities as one personality, when we are a collision of millions of thoughts and emotions? The conceptual mind unifies. The conceptual mind is unification. That's my theory. anyway.:flowers:

I refer once more to ineffability of sensation and emotion. I created a triangle diagram that's in my pictures. One version is labeled. I agree with Kojeve/Hegel and maybe Plato/Aristotle that man is Logos incarnate. The Logos in itself is absolute pure concept, and number gets very close to this. So does Being. But since Logos is incarnate, it makes its contingent concepts in relation to sensation and emotion. Aristotle saw this, I think. Forms of mud and hair. All we ever speak with are forms, forms, forms, contingent concepts. Because the proto-concept must be intuited. No name is its true name. Because it's the clay that concept is made of. It exist in logical space, except that logical space is made of it. It's a wild thought, you see. It's utterly prior to all intelligibility. Parmenides and Heraclitus both danced around it. Parm focused on the static finite absolute concept, and Heraclitus looked at flux..but also logos of course.

If it interests you, check out my Ineffability and (In)significanc of Qualia threads. These treat of continuous sensation/emotion.

THanks for engaging me on this. :detective:

You may stop in israel before arriving in Greece (or Berlin)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
(In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum)
John 1:1

I'll have a look to the suggested threads.