A Pro-Choice Challenge (1 Viewer)

[Jerry]

"Information" is too generic a term to facilitate clarity.

As I read it, "4" is data, not information, because information is a piece of knowledge, and knowledge requires a process of awareness.

There is no process in “4”, it just sits there, thus it is data.

Someone must add 2 to 2 in order for 4 to exist, so unless we make the judgment that 2 needs to be added to 2, and then perform the process, there is no 4.

This awarness will have biases relative to its current continuum of knowledge and experience.

Only by knowing and having experienced everything can a "processor", if you will, have true objectivity. Until then everyone is bias to some degree.

***
He who controls the vocabulary wins the debate

 

[FutureIncoming]

Jerry, you are being ridiculous. I was talking about the equation 2+2=4. As a whole, that equation does count as information. It is a thing independent of bias; it is exactly as true here as it is on the other side of the Universe. It incorporates concepts of counting and addition, which requires some mental power, but neither of those things is associated with biased mental power. BTW, did you know that crows can count to 4? Experiments were done with a shack in a corn patch, and some people who went to the shack and either left shortly after, or waited for the crows to descend --to rush out and scare them. When four people entered the shack in a group and 3 left, the crows didn't descend. They knew the 4th was in the shack (they could do subtraction!). But when 5 entered the shack and 4 left, the crows lost count and descended and then got scared/surprised. They apparently don't have the mental power to process larger numbers.

Your attempt to dissect 2+2=4 into biased or irrelevant components has failed.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I see you posted some stuff about the arguments presented that led to the Roe vs Wade decision. They are actually irrelevant.

Why?

I seldom make statements like that without also immediately explaining why. Why didn't you pay attention?

The wording of the Decision includes the data that was actually used to reach that Decision.

Do remember that Roe vs Wade was brought to the Supreme Court as a Constitutional issue, not as an ordinary dispute that became extreme. The particulars of somebody wanting (or maybe not actually wanting) an abortion are irrelevant, when the issue before the Court was a law-that-bans-abortion, which may or may not have been unConstitutional. Arguments before the Supreme Court, in such a case, revolve around showing why a specific law either fits, or doesn't fit, with the Overall Framework for Law in this Nation (which is the Constitution, of course). The Decision then incorporates those arguments, about whether or not a law is in violation of the Constitution, and not arguments about whether or not somebody was guilty of violating a law. I might remind you of the "Scopes Monkey Trial", in which someone was charged with teaching Evolution when a law existed to forbid it. Take a look at how the State Supreme Court handled the appeal, to see what I mean, about how at that level the law is on trial, not the original defendant.

And each judges decision was based on the facts presented.

Yes, but at that level the facts are supposed to be relevant to the Constitutionality of a law, and not about anything else.

Even if facts are presented, how do you know that personal bias didnt enter into their decision?

This is quite possible. After all, note that even preachers can take opposite sides on the abortion issue, based on what parts of the Bible they quote. Obviously the same can be true for Constitutional interpretations. Do I need to remind you of the Dredd Scott decision, a decision which just about everyone today would say was biased the wrong way? (I might mention this was before the 13th Amendment prohibited involuntary servitude, and so that particular bias cannot recur today.)

Why do you think there was all the hoopla over the recent judges who were appointed to the SC?

That's simple. We don't want brainwashed dogmatics violating Separation of Church and State. The mere fact that you yourself have resorted to unsupported religious blather, as a major part of your rationale for opposing abortion, shows how much you want the Constitution to be subservient to Dogma instead of Reason. Well, you need to know that the U.S. Constitution is one of the very best things that ever came out of the Age of Reason, which was preceded by the Thirty Years' War, full of squabbling religious Dogmas, that raged across Europe in the early 1600s. Separation of Church and State is the only thing that has kept religions from each other's throats in this Nation -- haven't you noticed how they still squabble in Ireland and the Mid-East? Religions have political power in those places, so squabbling results quite naturally! We don't need a Supreme Court as stupid as the Dredd Scott judges were, which it would be if it gave political power to any Religious Authority. (Remember that there are Religious Authorities who have no objection to abortion....)

I invite you to look at the last thing in my Signature. Find an appropriate Objective Fact. Use it to show why prohibiting abortion becomes logical, overriding all allows-abortion facts. Then you will be using Reason, not Dogma. (Yet for some reason no pro-lifer here has made the effort. I assume it's because no such Objective Fact exists, and they don't want to admit it.)

The left dont want anyone sitting on the bench who has any bias towards preserving life.

Actually, that's not completely true. The actual truth is that we don't want anyone sitting on the bench who has bias towards favoring human life, especially when Mindless, at the expense of all other life, especially including Minded Life. Which is exactly what prejudiced pro-lifers do. They seem to not care if humans multiply until the biomass of all other organisms of the planet have been converted into human flesh -- after which we all get to starve in a Malthusean Catastrophe, because no biomass will remain, of the sort needed to support all that human flesh. Tell me, when the Malthusean Catastrophe arrives, that you will have helped cause, and which will lead to the deaths of 90%+ of all humans, both born and unborn, worse than almost all incidents of genocide in History, will you accept responsibility, and allow yourself to be executed for your role in causing that genocide?

 

[jallman]

jallman you would call expert testimony before congress, misinterpretaion........

As i said your so far "left" from even respecting human life that no tesimony from anyone would matter....

Just because testimony was given before congress it doesn't get an automatic stamp of truth. Look at Clinton....

And you would like to make others believe that I have no respect for life because if you can villify my stance, then you get to claim sainthood and ordain your beliefs as the only proper ones to have. It's been almost a year and you are still at your same histrionic, over the top bullshit games. Pathetic really.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, you are being ridiculous. I was talking about the equation 2+2=4. As a whole, that equation does count as information. It is a thing independent of bias; it is exactly as true here as it is on the other side of the Universe. It incorporates concepts of counting and addition, which requires some mental power, but neither of those things is associated with biased mental power. BTW, did you know that crows can count to 4? Experiments were done with a shack in a corn patch, and some people who went to the shack and either left shortly after, or waited for the crows to descend --to rush out and scare them. When four people entered the shack in a group and 3 left, the crows didn't descend. They knew the 4th was in the shack (they could do subtraction!). But when 5 entered the shack and 4 left, the crows lost count and descended and then got scared/surprised. They apparently don't have the mental power to process larger numbers.

Your attempt to dissect 2+2=4 into biased or irrelevant components has failed.

That's very interesting...about the crows. My mother in-law had a...how the fuch do you spell it.....macaw(?)...which could count to 3 and speak in context (all cuss words).

In any event, the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2, and, objectively, we can not assume that such a subjective moral judgment is correct.

2 terrorists + 2 bombs = 0; as nothing will be left when their don.

It's all about context. Without an intelligence to observe the equation, "2+2=4" is nothing more then a graphic; void on any meaning. Thus since any intelligence which does not know and has experienced everything has a subjective view on everything relative to it's current knowledge and experience, any observation of the graphic "2+2=4" will have a subjective meaning, not an objective meaning.

If I have failed in any way it is in communicating my point to you. However, since you have not countered my point (opting for an irrelevant story on crows instead), you have equally failed.

 

[FutureIncoming]

In any event, the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2, ...

OH? What is the basis for your assumption that that is what the equation is about? Why can't it be about "if you have two of something, and then if you add two more of them, then you will have four of them"? Where is there an assumption of need in that description?

... and, objectively, we can not assume that such a subjective moral judgment is correct.

We can, however, assume that your interpretation is totally incorrect, since "need" does not automatically figure in the equation.

2 terrorists + 2 bombs = 0; as nothing will be left when their don.

Now you are mixing apples and oranges. Most of the time, addition is about a quantity of alike things. And when it isn't, the sum must then describe a "more generic set" than either of the subsets of things in that set. So, 2 terrorists + 2 bombs = 4 objects. If the bombs explode, it could more accurately be said that that counts as a division of obects, into smaller pieces! (leaving a result rather greater than the 0 that you erroneously specified).

It's all about context. Without an intelligence to observe the equation, "2+2=4" is nothing more then a graphic; void on any meaning.

PARTLY FALSE. Enumeration involves an abstraction. Yes, intelligence is needed to process that abstraction, and to process other abstractions such as the symbols that represent quantities. But because the concept of enumeration is itself abstract, there is no need to insist that quantities and their manipulations always be associated with ordinary non-abstract objects. Isaac Asimov once wrote about an incident with a college philosopher, who claimed that mathematicians are mystics because they believed in such quantities as the square-root-of-negative-one. However, Asimov stumped the philosopher by saying that that quantity was as real as the quantity of one-half -- that is, there is no such thing as a one-half piece of chalk, without invoking additional arbitrary definitions (about shape, length, etc.; no matter how mauled, you can hold a piece of chalk between two fingers and consider it to be one single piece of chalk; "It certainly isn't two or three", Asmiov told the philospher).

Thus since any intelligence which does not know and has experienced everything has a subjective view on everything relative to it's current knowledge and experience, any observation of the graphic "2+2=4" will have a subjective meaning, not an objective meaning.

Nice try, but no cigar. Even on Earth various human cultures found a number of ways to use symbols to represent the abstraction of quantity, which is indeed an Objective thing. The symbols may be subjective, and arbitrary defintions are of course subjective, but the abstraction of enumeration, and its objectivity, remain unaffected by your argument.

 

[Jerry]

OH? What is the basis for your assumption that that is what the equation is about? Why can't it be about "if you have two of something, and then if you add two more of them, then you will have four of them"? Where is there an assumption of need in that description?

Do you now see even your own need to place "2+2=4" into context? As a sterile graphic, void of background or purpose, it could mean anything the observer wishes it to mean because you leave the observer in the dark as to figuring out the context of the graphic.

Here you are assuming that "2" and "2" are the same thing. However, you can not assume that others will assume the same as you without giving the context.

You are expecting the observer to prepossess the knowledge of what you are trying to find, and since very few people on this planet even claim to have psychic powers, you must place "2+2=4" into a context; ie: There are 2 women already in the room, then 2 men enter; how many people are in the room; -vs.- how many women are in the room, and similar.

In that context 2+2 would = 4, but in other contexts it may not.

***
The graphic is commonly interpreted by an observer so as to show the presence of an operation. I can not accept the doctrine of your post with which the graphic is contained and take it as axiomatic that the operation is appropriate and needs to be performed with out agreeing with your evidence proving such a thing.

"4" does not exist until the observer adds 2 to 2 as its existence is not a given simply because you say so and right it down. Since you wish for an observer to perform this operation it is your job to provide evidence showing that such an addition need occur.

For that matter, without a context an observer can not even assume that "2" exists in the first place. "Because I say so" postulations don't cut it.

Now you are mixing apples and oranges. Most of the time, addition is about a quantity of alike things. And when it isn't, the sum must then describe a "more generic set" than either of the subsets of things in that set. So, 2 terrorists + 2 bombs = 4 objects. If the bombs explode, it could more accurately be said that that counts as a division of obects, into smaller pieces! (leaving a result rather greater than the 0 that you erroneously specified).

The observer must first know that they are to look for "pieces", and not "people" or "bombs". Again you leave the observer to assume what you assume, and you can't really on that.

PARTLY FALSE. Enumeration involves an abstraction. Yes, intelligence is needed to process that abstraction, and to process other abstractions such as the symbols that represent quantities. But because the concept of enumeration is itself abstract, there is no need to insist that quantities and their manipulations always be associated with ordinary non-abstract objects. Isaac Asimov once wrote about an incident with a college philosopher, who claimed that mathematicians are mystics because they believed in such quantities as the square-root-of-negative-one. However, Asimov stumped the philosopher by saying that that quantity was as real as the quantity of one-half -- that is, there is no such thing as a one-half piece of chalk, without invoking additional arbitrary definitions (about shape, length, etc.; no matter how mauled, you can hold a piece of chalk between two fingers and consider it to be one single piece of chalk; "It certainly isn't two or three", Asmiov told the philospher).

I think you hit on something here, the invocation of arbitrary definitions.
Is it an offspring, or is it only a halfway developed offspring?

Domino's puts in an assembly of ingredients into an oven, and out the other end comes a pizza.

At what point does a pizza become a "pizza" while in the oven?

"Arbitrary definitions" indeed.

Only when an observer shears these arbitrary definitions with another will a common understanding be reached.

Nice try, but no cigar. Even on Earth various human cultures found a number of ways to use symbols to represent the abstraction of quantity, which is indeed an Objective thing. The symbols may be subjective, and arbitrary defintions are of course subjective, but the abstraction of enumeration, and its objectivity, remain unaffected by your argument.

I infer the following from your posts past:
"2" can not have any universal numerical value because such a value would be truly free from subjectivity, and there are no Objective Values.

The universal abstract value of "2" proves that Objective Values exist.

 

[ngdawg]

Sheesh......:beatdeadhorse
You love them dead horses, don'tcha, Jer?:mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

Sheesh......:beatdeadhorse
You love them dead horses, don'tcha, Jer?:mrgreen:

That's all the abortion issue is now. Same with gay marriage, pop-illegal immigration, gun controle........

I drop a joke or 2 in The Lighter Side, post a thread on unknown things your cell phone can do in Science and Tech......and now I'm debating the value of "2"......:doh....sad thing is, I find debating a number more entertaining than discussing a politician and whether or not they will run, or when/if/how they lied, etc. I just don't care because the Conspiracy Nut in me says it doesn't matter.

DP is starting to get a bit stagnant. I wish more people would post more Chit....especially polls....I love polls....

 

[ngdawg]

Here's a pole:

 

[FutureIncoming]

In any event, the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2, ...

Where is there an assumption of need in that description?

Do you now see even your own need to place "2+2=4" into context?

You are changing the subject. My needs have nothing whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that "the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2". I asked where the "need" is, in the equation, and so far you have failed to answer that simple question.

The equation is just a description, having no more "need" built into it than the description, "some arbitrary Rock A has more mass than some other Rock B".
==================================
The main body of your post is just more of a tangent away from the original subject and question that I asked about. I need not respond to it in any detail at this time, while I await your specific answer to my question.
==================================

"2" can not have any universal numerical value because such a value would be truly free from subjectivity, and there are no Objective Values. The universal abstract value of "2" proves that Objective Values exist.

Now you are confusing "enumeration" with "valuation". The enumerability of things is Objective. Our declaring enumerabiltiy to have value is Subjective. And "2" is just a symbol we Subjectively use to represent a particular enumeration. Did you know that the reason we call it an "Arabic numeral" is because it (and each of the others) is a distorted form of one of the letters of the Arabic alphabet? We could just as Subjectively decide to use some alternate symbols:
"0, 3, 6, 9, C, F, I2, IV, I8, IB, IE, 2I, 24, 27, 2X, 2D, 30, 33, 36, ..."
(counting zero to fifty-four by threes, in "positional notation Base Sixteen" using a mixture of Arabic, Roman, and modern hexadecimal digits --with that immediately preceding description and this one using Normal English Base Ten verbiage).

 

[Jerry]

You are changing the subject. My needs have nothing whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that "the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2". I asked where the "need" is, in the equation, and so far you have failed to answer that simple question.

The equation is just a description, having no more "need" built into it than the description, "some arbitrary Rock A has more mass than some other Rock B".

I thought I answered that question. I'll try to be clearer.

The assumption that "2" needs to be added to "2" is represented by the graphic "+", as the creator of that graphic arbitrarily placed it there for a reason you have not yet let out.

I can not summarily assume that the creator of the graphic was not in error, and that in fact "2" needed to be subtracted from "2". I need to know the reason why it supposedly needs to be added.

"some arbitrary Rock A has more mass than some other Rock B"

By placing the graphic in context, as you just proved needs to be don, we now can use the scientific method to examine the rocks and determine if "2" exists in the first place ("2" rocks, for example....or "2" tons of water displacement), whether or not the operation "+" is appropriate or not (is it "rock A has more mass" or "rock B has less mass"...the observer of your graphic needs to know what you want him/her to look for. Also, which rock is measured first will have bearing on which operation is performed), and after determining the appropriate information, we can the perform the operation we have decided on and see if the difference between rock A and rock B is truly "4"........and "4" of what, BTW? Your graphic doesn't give that information either.

Now you are confusing "enumeration" with "valuation".

I didn't speak of a list of symbols, but of a universal abstract.

"2+2" = 4 no matter where you are in the Galaxy, no matter what symbols you use. This is of coarse what you were arguing in post 148 when you said:

2+2=4. That is information, independent of anyone's prejudice. And vast amounts of other information is equally independent. It is Objective, not Subjective.

The graphic "2+2=4" represents a universal abstract value, a value which is constant even when you change the numerical symbols representing that value.

The value of "2" is "independent of anyone's prejudice". It is an Objective Value.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The assumption that "2" needs to be added to "2" is represented by the graphic "+", as the creator of that graphic arbitrarily placed it there for a reason you have not yet let out.

BAD LOGIC. A description is not the same thing as a need. The key fact is that we are dealing with abstract quantities -- and 2+2=4 is just a description of one possible relationship between some of those quantities. That's all. You have no need to make any assumptions about the applicability of the equation, or questions about it, other than "Is this relationship accurate?"

For another example of a relationship between quantities, consider the definition of a "prime number", which is "any number that has only the factors of itself and 1". The first few primes are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ... (and declaring 1 to be a prime is sometimes accepted and sometimes frowned-upon). Then there is Goldbach's Conjecture, "Any even integer larger than 3 can be expressed as the sum of two primes." (If I disallow 1 as a prime, then I cannot stay within the bounds of the Conjecture by writing "4=3+1", but I can still write "4=2+2", since the Conjecture does not require two different primes to be summed. And of course if I allow 1 as a prime, then the first even number 2=1+1.) Goldbach's Conjecture has not formally been proved to be true, but nobody has ever found a counterexample (an even number that can't be expressed as the sum of two primes), either, among the first few quadrillion even integers. Anyway, the point here is that only relationships among abstract quantities are involved, in a statement such as Goldbach's Conjecture. Adding primes to make even numbers involves descriptions aplenty, none of which are associated with "need" (certainly nobody really needs to prove that Conjecture! And curiosity and desire are neither one of them "need").

"some arbitrary Rock A has more mass than some other Rock B"

By placing the graphic in context, as you just proved needs to be don,

UTTERLY FALSE. I am proving the opposite, by presenting you with countereexamples! No context is required for writing a description involving quantities. Also, consider this description (the * represents multiplication), (A*A) + (B*B) = (C*C) -- which is purely algebraic and doesn't even have to involve integer quantities! --(and which sometimes is useful when working with a triangle that includes a "right angle"). Or consider another description: (A*A*A) + (B*B*B) is never = (C*C*C), when A, B, and C are positive integers.

we now can use the scientific method to examine the rocks

Yes, just put them on opposite ends of a see-saw, in a gravity field or accelerating spaceship. Simple, and no quantification of mass necessary.

the observer of your graphic needs to know what you want him/her to look for

FALSE. The observer of the graphic can choose to accept the description, or to not accept the description, or even to ignore the description as being irrelevant to the observer. The description is a declarative, not an interrogative.

Now you are confusing "enumeration" with "valuation".

I didn't speak of a list of symbols, but of a universal abstract. "2+2" = 4 no matter where you are in the Galaxy, no matter what symbols you use.

And I also was talking about abstract quantities, along with Subjective symbols representing those quantities. YOU, however, are indeed confusing "quantity" with "value". Do remember that the most relevant synonym for "value", in this discussion, is "worth", not "quantity". If you ask, "What's that lamp worth to you?", I might be a maid who says, "Less quantity of dinars than that new lamp, and thanks for the trade!" Or I might be Aladdin who says, "More quantity of dinars than you would be willing to pay. Sentimental value, you understand?"

This is of coarse what you were arguing in post 148 when you said:

2+2=4. That is information, independent of anyone's prejudice. And vast amounts of other information is equally independent. It is Objective, not Subjective.

The graphic "2+2=4" represents a universal abstract value, ...

SEE? That word "value" is incorrect in that context. The phrase "relationship among certain quantities" is the accurate thing to say, instead of "value".

a value which is constant even when you change the numerical symbols representing that value.

Again your confusion is revealed. The quantities and their relationship do not change when different symbols are used to describe that relationship.

The value of "2" is "independent of anyone's prejudice". It is an Objective Value.

"Quantity", not "value/worth".

 

[Jerry]

BAD LOGIC.

That's just your opinion.

A description is not the same thing as a need. The key fact is that we are dealing with abstract quantities -- and 2+2=4 is just a description of one possible relationship between some of those quantities. That's all. You have no need to make any assumptions about the applicability of the equation, or questions about it, other than "Is this relationship accurate?"

Without the information I requested I can not assume that the relationship is accurate. I can not verify the description.

For another example of a relationship between quantities...

No thanks.

Anyway, the point here is that only relationships among abstract quantities are involved,

You spoke of "information", which is subjective relative to the total knowledge and experience of the observer.

UTTERLY FALSE.

That's just your opinion.

I am proving the opposite, by presenting you with countereexamples!

You’re about to contradict yourself.....

FALSE.

That's just your opinion.

The observer of the graphic can choose to accept the description, or to not accept the description, or even to ignore the description as being irrelevant to the observer. The description is a declarative, not an interrogative.

Thus "2+2=4" as "information" is subjective to the observer’s decision of relevancy.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, again.

And I also was talking about abstract quantities, along with Subjective symbols representing those quantities. YOU, however, are indeed confusing "quantity" with "value".

The word you used was "enumeration", not "quantity".

FYI, I checked the definitions of " enumeration " and " value " before posting my last, so I know that I am right.

You now try to play word games and hide behind "quantity", knowing full well that "value" applies in the context of your abortion discussion and reference to "information".

SEE? That word "value" is incorrect in that context. The phrase "relationship among certain quantities" is the accurate thing to say, instead of "value".

"Value" applies as I have used it in conjunction with your "information".

Again your confusion is revealed.

That's just your opinion.

The quantities and their relationship do not change when different symbols are used to describe that relationship.

"Quantity", not "value/worth".

LOL,
You just said that 2-2 will equal 4 just as 2+2 does because the quantities and their relationship do not change when different symbols are used to describe that relationship.

FYI, a negative number is not a positive number.

***
The 6th use for "value" in the definition I provided shows that I used "value" appropriately in relation to your notion of "information".

I gave you the chance to opt for "data" instead of "information" at the off, but you declined.

You have Objective Value.

 

[Jerry]

Ya ever get the feelin that I'm jus tryin to phuck withya?

 

[FutureIncoming]

The assumption that "2" needs to be added to "2" is represented by the graphic "+", as the creator of that graphic arbitrarily placed it there for a reason you have not yet let out.

BAD LOGIC.

That's just your opinion.

It's not "just opinion" if I can support the claim with evidence. Which I did in fact do (and almost always try to do; that's why I write long posts!):

A description is not the same thing as a need. The key fact is that we are dealing with abstract quantities -- and 2+2=4 is just a description of one possible relationship between some of those quantities. That's all. You have no need to make any assumptions about the applicability of the equation, or questions about it, other than "Is this relationship accurate?"

Without the information I requested I can not assume that the relationship is accurate. I can not verify the description.

AHA! Now you are changing the subject again!

In any event, the equation 2+2=4 erroneously assumes that 2 needs to be added to 2, ...

Where is there an assumption of need in that description?

SEE? The equation has no "need" built into it; your own needs (to understand the symbols used in equations) are unrelated to the statement that that particular equation makes.

Anyway, the point here is that only relationships among abstract quantities are involved

You spoke of "information", which is subjective relative to the total knowledge and experience of the observer.

That's just your mistaken opinion. Information doesn't have to be known by anyone to still count as being information. For example, the ancient Minoan script called "Linear A" encodes information, but nobody alive today knows that language. The information encoded in those ancient writings most certainly exists, but it is not accessible. Therefore, being known merely relates to the utility/usefulness of information; unknown information is not the same thing as not-existing. (And that means that the entire field of Mathematics has always been about the discovery of already-existing relationships. That is, mathematicians do not create relationships such as 2+2=4; mathematicians only discover them.) ALSO, even trivial information still qualifies as "information"; the word has an extremely broad meaning. And even if every organism in the Universe knows a particular thing, that thing still qualifies as being information.

The observer of the graphic can choose to accept the description, or to not accept the description, or even to ignore the description as being irrelevant to the observer. The description is a declarative, not an interrogative.

Thus "2+2=4" as "information" is subjective to the observer’s decision of relevancy.

FALSE, as explained in detail above. A fact is one thing; its subjective relevance/usefulness is another. And your attempts to confuse the issue continue to fail, utterly.

And I also was talking about abstract quantities, along with Subjective symbols representing those quantities. YOU, however, are indeed confusing "quantity" with "value".

The word you used was "enumeration", not "quantity".

And I will use "magnitude", too! "Enumeration" is the counting of (and the assigning of numbers to) the individual items of a group. "Quantity" or "magnitude" refer to the total count. Too, the word "Value" can refer to the total count, but "value" also has a totally different and non-mathematical definition, "worth". You are attempting, in essence, to claim that because a greater-than-zero quantity can be synonymous with a greater-than-zero value, then "worth" must automatically also be greater-than-zero. That's bad logic, equivalent to saying, "Because the "set" of numerical symbols is complete, my "set" of dishes must also be complete."

You now try to play word games and hide behind "quantity", knowing full well that "value" applies in the context of your abortion discussion and reference to "information".

FALSE; I am not playing word games because I have previously specified that I meant "worth" when I wrote such stuff as "There is no such thing as Objective Value." And you know this.

You just said that 2-2 will equal 4 just as 2+2 does because the quantities and their relationship do not change when different symbols are used to describe that relationship.

MORE FAULTY LOGIC. You are no longer describing the same relationship, when you make that particular change in symbols. What I was talking about was more like, suppose you used "&" instead of "+". It is a different symbol that can have equivalent meaning -- or you could use an entirely new symbol, never before drawn, and assign it meaning equivalent to "+". In either case the overall relationship does not change, when those different symbols are used to describe that relationship. I was not talking about using symbols that have meanings such that they would change the relationship.

FYI, a negative number is not a positive number

That's true, but it can have identical "magnitude", to a positive number.

 

[Jerry]

It's not "just opinion".......

Ya ever get the feelin that I'm jus tryin to phuck withya?

Calm down guy, it's cool. :2wave: