The job of Philosophy

What is 10 without a referent X say bits or any other unit ? Feel free to do Metaphysics of Mathematics! (The religious kind)

For anyone who interested in actual math... Albuquerque is confusing a few different concepts.

1. The term "frame of reference" is a science term. A frame is used to specify an observer when making measurements. The concept is key to an understanding of Physics.

2. The mathematical concept of "vector space" is kind of equivalent to a frame of reference. Unlike science which is based on experiment, mathematics is based on proof. A vector space consists of objects and operators (I am simplifying things). The numbers and operators (i.e. addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc) you are familiar with constitute a vector space.. There are others that are used in Physics to solve different classes of problems.

3. Albuquerque is still confusing numbers with sets, and the Youtube video he found didn't help. The problem with attacking number theory (which is fairly advanced) before you understand high school math is that it leads to persistent misunderstanding.

4. Albuquerque is completely off base when he talks about numbers having a size. That is nonsense... and his failure to answer simple questions about this shows that.

5. Albuquerque's repeated assertion that 10 = 6 is funny.

Numbers do represent ratios and relations. As such they fit Set Theory. Moreover they can only be justified through Set Theory.
The tenness of 10 is found in sets of things that have tenness as a set, say 10 oranges 10 apples 10 Pigs...
Numbers that have no ratio to any phenomena cannot be meaningful or state anything abstract or concrete. They do not provide ANY INFORMATION!
When I say that 10 equals 10 units of 1 I am already establishing multiplicity of X thing even if just thoughts.

I am seriously considering charging dumb people 1000 euros for each reply I give on the forums. Teaching dumb people is a waste of energy if either I don't get money or the person failed to learn something that is valuable to society.
And with that I am off! Cya guys!

I am spending too much time defending math from the Philosophers. Let's talk about the difference between math and philosophy.

1. In math there are concrete proofs. A mathematicians has well defined mathematical space, and then proves statements that are write or wrong. Every term in mathematics is specific and well defined. I am talk the size of a set, I can tell you how the size operator works, and there is no question about the result when I apply the operator.

2. In non-mathematical language, the word "size" has many meanings. The "size of Max" can refer to my height or my weight. The "size of Max's family" is a (ironically dimensionless) number that refers to how many people there in a collection. This ambiguity seems to be a key in philsophizing.

3. In philosophy everything can be explained away and nothing can be disproven.You will notice that when Albuquerque was faced with consequences of his assertion that all numbers are equal... he didn't have inherent contradiction in the statement 10 = 6. He simply explained it away with more ill-defined words.

4. The exactness and precision of mathematics has real world applications. When Albuquerque responds that mathematics isn't real... he will be using key codes that will correspond to the rows of keys he is touching. This will be translated by a digital circuit into a text encoding (probably UTF-8). This will be sent by a digital computer program (a bunch of numeric opcodes) to an IP address which represents a digital server. This will all be encrypted using and optimized.

When you read Albuquerque's nonsense about how math isn't real.. think about how much math is involved in what he is doing.

It is silly. What has Philosophy done for you lately?

No no. Bigger or smaller in relation to any X you choose for referent be it height or weight or apples.

And for good measure Mathematics started formally with counting Grain in Sumeria.

Without a referent even the more abstract of them say length, which refers to vector space as the ignoramus alluded to 10 is just a name!

I am a bit nuanced here. I will state that Philosophy is useless to those engaged in mathematics or science. The great Physicist Feynman said it best when he said "philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

My opinion is that scientists should have an understanding of morality and ethics. Morality is not a scientific question... science simply can't provide the basis of morality because there is no experiment that deals with what is right or wrong.

I argue strongly that science is best for answering scientific questions. There are many questions that aren't scientific questions.

However the number of philosophers who haven't taken the time to reach even a high school level understanding of science or math acting as if they can intuitively understand relativity or number theory... it leads to ridiculous statements like Albuquerque's claim that the number 10 equals the number 6.

Science cannot be justified by Science. And this is a Philosophical statement and a Universal logical tautology valid for anything! Ignoraaaamuuus!!!

There you go with the name calling. I agree with you that your statement is both "a Philosophical statement" and "a Universal logical tautology valid". So what?

Why does science need to be "justified"?

...and this is a Philosophical stance although a very poor one!
Why does anything demands explanation? Because we VALUE it! Or not...
...and now we are getting into Economy...oh boy!

I neither agree with you nor disagree with this post (other than the fact that you continue the childish insults).

Whether science has value or not is a philosophical question. Math and science can't justify themselves... nor do they need to. I do no care at all about the question whether science is justified or not. That is a question for the philosophers.

Science is science whether it is philosophically justified or not.

If you wanted to justify science scientifically (or math mathematically) you would need to first define the term justify in a way that can be measured. Just as "size" can mean many things... justification can many even more.

In science you would need to set up an experiment, and in order to do that you would need to have experimental results that would show that science wasn't "justified".

If you can set up such an experiment... then you have a scientifically relevant question. This philosophically vague condition is meaningless in the context of science.

Oh dear, there you go contradicting Albert again.

If this is a tribal pissing contest than I have no trouble in stating Philosophy pisses all over Science in all domains. It is not even a close fight. Whether people understand where when and how I personally don't give a dam...people will be people!

Science wants to be pragmatic and pragmatic here reads trivial and dull.
As soon as Science tries to push limits or get to interesting topics it devolves back to naive metaphysics.

Funny enough Science always evolves into Philosophy if done right.
Good Philosophy never devolves into Scientific triviality.

Exactly! It is Philosophy pissing on Science. And Science doesn't care.

Science is only interested in what can be tested by experiment and observation. It doesn't care about the meaning why, it just cares about what happens. Science would be able to tell you the temperature of your piss, and chemical composition, and the present of any sexually transmitted viruses. That philosophers are attacking science is simply a fact. It doesn't impact the results of science in any way.

The desire to insult, and demean isn't part of science. Science can't even understand cruelty or childishness... these things can't be measured by experiment.

The need to piss on everyone in purely in Philosophy's domain.

Maybe pissing on things they don't understand is the job of Philosophy.

The chemical composition of my piss wont be turn into wine by Science and for good measure of temperature I only need my hand. As for the purpose of virus in this world Science has no clue of their role in the ecosystem and whether they are good or bad is more open to Philosophical inquiry.
Finally getting data is not equal to UNDERSTANDING data. Making good questions is even harder!

Science is a waiter a method a thing it is not even Reason. For the most part it is done Industrially by a bunch of poorly payed undergrads that apply the rules in very specific domains without having the faintest grasp of the project they are working on. Menial tasks that can be replaced by bots very soon.

I don't think you qualify as a Scientist but if you did you would be the perfect example on why a Scientist doesn't need any whatsoever brains at all. It just doesn't!

For a scientist or mathematician, the word "understanding" means being able to use theories or principles to get the correct answer.

For example, you talked about "uncountable numbers" and referred to the "size of a number". What you said made no sense... but I think you are referring to the size of sets, and whether a set is countable or uncountable.

If you took a math class, you would take tests to prove your understanding of each concept. By solving actual problems, you would be able to demonstrate your understanding. More important, when you have a misunderstanding... you could see you go the wrong answer and correct your mistake. This is how you learn when you get the wrong answer.

On a math test, you may be given a number of different sets. For example I could define a set as [pi, pi/2, pi/3 ... pi/n]. I think you would know that each member of this set is irrational.

But can you tell me the size of this set? And can you tell me if this set is countable or not.

If you can't answer basic questions about the terms you are using, then you don't understand them. If you then encounter these terms in Youtube videos, you are very likely to get a bigger misunderstanding on what the video is actually saying.

The way you get an understanding in math or science is to start with the basics. If you don't understand the basics, it is impossible for you to understand the more advanced topics.

Let me just clear this for you I only read the first sentence and have to stop you already.
A Mathematicians is a Philosopher! Get that in your head you flying thick brick. If in doubt ask them!

PS - It is not my fault that you and your "colleagues" don't know what Philosophy is and I don't have to deal with continued ignorance and sheer stupidity from morning to dusk!

If that is the case... I use mathematics every day in my job. We need Mathematicians. I don't see a need for any other type of Philosopher.