2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more:
a - a = 0 is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0
1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3
"Apple" is really (1)Apple
Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other.
To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario:
"Hey Bob, I like your...yard."
"Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?"
"I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?"
"Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine."
"
"
And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician).
3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise.
4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?
Jesus Christ! OK, I'm not going to be kind any more. Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it. You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on. You aren't interested in truth at all. You just want to play with people.
Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing. Nothing more. It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common.
Actually there's some significance because it means all of those things belong in the same set of countable things. Oranges and grains of sand may seem completely different, but they're both countable types of objects, so they belong in the same set. This is pretty common in (OOP) computer programming where various classes of objects all inherit from a super class called 'object'. Now if I try something special, like create an assumption about reality, that assumption is also countable -- there's one -- so it also belongs in the same set together with the other objects.
Admittedly I'm not quite sure where he was going with this. Perhaps if I count the number of Greek gods, and you count the number of oranges, neither of us have a pre-existing basis to say "my things are more real than your things" because we both used the same technique: counting. And even if one of us
does have a pre-existing basis, that basis is also a countable object that belongs to the same set. The "pot calling the kettle black" situation fits perfectly.
Infinity is an idea, not a number.
And numbers are not ideas?
Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size.
But numbers don't have a size either. Look:
2 and
2 -- different font size, same number.
