Truth is Relative

One object. Sure. But by your logic, I can hand him five apples instead of five dollars, since both of them are "five".Five dollars is not the same as one dollar. Five dollars is not the same as five apples. One and five are not the same.But one object is not the same as "one". One object is one object, not "one."I seem to recall you losing this argument several years ago, and with the logic you're using here, no wonder. I think you're just going to have to accept that the kind of Platonism you espouse here may be endemic to mathematicians, but it hardly convinces anybody else.To anticipate a direction where this conversation might go, if mathematicians discover, rather than invent, mathematical truths (like numbers), then where do the falsehoods come from? If the answer is "imagination", then why can't mathematicians be imagining the truths, as well? If the answer is "the same place the falsehoods come from", then you have the Library of Babel problem, where finding a truth among all the falsehoods isn't a fundamentally different problem than making it up (as, in the Library of Babel, finding a specific book requires you to write it in order to specify the search term.)The Library of Babel disproves Plato's Cave.

You do. When you asked "what do we have when we have one object?" Do I need to quote you asking that question, or can I assume you remember?What we have is one object. Not "one". Asked and answered. It's one object.Are you just going to repeat questions I've already answered? Look, I remember how this works with you, Rrhain. You're going to ignore answers and pretend like I said something different than what I wrote - like above, where you make the spurious claim that I just said "number is an inherent property". You're going to reply line-by-line instead of to representative excerpts so that message length will explode out of control. You're going to use extremely long messages to conceal personal attacks from the admin's notice.You're going to engage in every kind of disingenuity and dishonest behavior, and then accuse me of doing so.Did you think I forgot? Honestly, I had quite enough of that kind of behavior from an entire year of Holmes. Do you think I'm at all interested in doing that with you? Think again, please. It came from your logic. Do you really need me to quote you again? If you don't get it yet I doubt you're going to. If this is feigned ignorance then I doubt you're ever going to admit you understood all along.It was a statement in plain English, Rrhain. Are you claiming that you don't understand plain English, now? That's a disappointing way to begin our first conversation in so many years, I must say.I really have no taste these days for your preferred method of arguing. I'm disappointed that you felt you had to crank up the disingenuity so soon, since you're a poster that I very much respect. I had hoped there was some degree of mutuality about that but I perceive that I was wrong.It's a pleasure to read your posts when you're right, Rrhain, I do mean that, but when you're obviously and clearly wrong your behavior is infuriatingly dishonest and disrespectful. Like Holmes I don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself would have such a hard time recognizing and admitting error. Hint: it was just a slogan I used in summation.Too bad, Rrhain. I had really hoped you had learned something about how to behave on the losing side. By all means, take the last word, but I don't expect I'll reply on this subject any further.