View Poll Results: How many objects are in the box? (Image in OP)

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • 3, obviously. Duh.

    3 27.27%
  • 0

    0 0%
  • 1

    0 0%
  • 7

    1 9.09%
  • 4

    0 0%
  • Infinite/arbitrary

    4 36.36%
  • TB is a loser / Your Mom / Betty White / Betty White's Mom

    3 27.27%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Random Friday Question 2.0

  1. #1
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default Random Friday Question 2.0

    Same rules. You can just answer the poll and leave, or see below for a discussion that will carry on at great, unnecessary length .

    Question: "how many objects are in this box?"(When counting, keep in mind: can larger objects be created out of smaller ones? Spoiler box might help.)


    Further rules:
    1) there is no air or anything else in the box.
    2) the box itself and no part of the box count as "inside the box."
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically; of course they have a "top half" and "bottom half" theoretically but imagine they're electrons or something that is already smallest and can't be cut.

    A short explanation of each answer option (i.e. "why on earth would anyone select that choice??")

    0: "things don't exist; the only thing that exists is my thoughts thus there is nothing in the box."
    1: "multiplicity is an illusion; all things are one despite appearing as multiple."
    3: I feel like this one is obvious so I won't explain it . The issue with this view is that it's not going to allow composite things, ie. things composed of other things. That is, only the tiniest things are things and everything else -- things we appear to deal with on a daily basis, such as people of any non-subatomic-thing, is going to not really be a thing since the only "things" are the smallest.
    4: The two objects close together are close enough to form a union object, so there are the 3 simple objects and that one object that is the union of those two objects.
    7: distance doesn't matter -- there are the three simple objects, as well as 4 union objects (the union of all 3, the union of 1 and 2, the union of 1 and 3, and the union of 2 and 3.)
    Infinity: what about the top half of each and the bottom half? Left side and right side? You can count an arbitrarily large number of objects since any object is infinitely conceptually divisible. In other words, you can have either no objects or an infinite number. There is no in between.



    Last Random Friday Question
    Next Random Friday Question
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-13-2017 at 02:35 AM.

  2. #2
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Can't see the image?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  3. #3
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    I fixed it. I'm bad at life sometimes Rok

  4. #4
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    I have a limited imagination
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  5. #5
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Why you choose logical question. I wanted the choose the final -last- answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  6. #6
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Hmm, no one has voted with me and there's a pretty sizable brain bloc on that infinite/arbitrary choice. I wonder if I'm mistaken

  7. #7

    Default

    I counted more than seven, so I went with infinite/arbitrary.

    Place a circle/sphere on top of a circle sphere and there is new dimensions. There is also the concept of negative space, whereas the positioning of the circles and lines create new dimensions. And the materials of the circles are to be determined. Are they round ballons fill with paint that are captured in a moment before they fall and splatter on a surface below? How to define an object? Are circles on a paper objects? or just prints on one obeject, the paper?

  8. #8
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    They can't splatter - rules say they can't be physically divided. They're like a single quark or some other particle that cannot be divided. Not even atoms would work because even they can be divided. They're not "made of" anything, so they're not made of any materials. They kind of just are -- like a quark kind of just is. It's made of only itself.

    As for your part about falling -- let's make the "box" just an imaginary block of space with no actual walls (we just are defining the block of space), and lets put it somewhere in the middle of noplace so there isn't any net gravity to speak of.

    Although if you think things like "dimensions" and distances are things in the box then you're going to have to go with infinity so you still chose right by your logic. IMO, the particles are in the box, but the conceptual objects, like dimensionality or distances, are not. Those are properties, imagined more than extant.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-03-2017 at 05:15 PM.

  9. #9
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    so well, if you want to go with unions, and if we ad computer science representations and logic, there would be:
    object a in space
    object b in space
    object c in space
    union-object (a,b)
    object a in union-object (a,b)
    object b in union-object (a,b)
    union-object (b,c)
    object b in union-object (b,c)
    object c in union-object (b,c)
    union-object (a,c)
    object a in union-object (a,c)
    object c in union-object (a,c)
    union-object (a,b,c)
    object a in union-object (a,b,c)
    object b in union-object (a,b,c)
    object c in union-object (a,b,c)
    16 objects
    ahh now I really wish I have chosen the last answer, since I got a different answer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  10. #10
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    I'm confused about how "object a in object a,b" is different from just "object a". That count collapses into 7 unique objects in this case. (Barring some good explanation of why you get to list the same object as different objects multiple times.)

    The seven uniques are:
    Object A
    Object B
    Object C
    Object AB
    Object AC
    Object BC
    Object ABC

    All objects on your list of 16 collapse into one of those 7 as far as I can see.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm confused about how "object a in object a,b" is different from just "object a". That count collapses into 7 unique objects in this case. (Barring some good explanation of why you get to list the same object as different objects multiple times.)

    The seven uniques are:
    Object A
    Object B
    Object C
    Object AB
    Object AC
    Object BC
    Object ABC

    All objects on your list of 16 collapse into one of those 7 as far as I can see.
    But the dimensions of ABC can be infinite. In a linear shape the object can be ABC, BAC etc. or the shape can form Micky Mouse ears, which compiling the possibilities would amount to more than 7.

  12. #12
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    I choose option f: The word object is poorly defined.

    Edit: From dictionary.com:

    anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
    So that would depend on the forces holding the particles together.
    Last edited by Mouse-Keyboard; 03-03-2017 at 07:30 PM.

  13. #13
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    I choose option f: The word object is poorly defined.

    Edit: From dictionary.com:



    So that would depend on the forces holding the particles together.
    That's why you're being asked to define it!

    Dictionary.com's answer is closest to the answer "4" in my spoiler list. I call BS on arbitrariness though. If you and I aren't an object before we shake hands and after, it's odd that we're a single object while shaking hands. Looks to me like you've gotta go with 7 or 3 on that argument. Or one of the other "extremist" positions (my word, non cannon), like "infinity" or "0."
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    But the dimensions of ABC can be infinite. In a linear shape the object can be ABC, BAC etc. or the shape can form Micky Mouse ears, which compiling the possibilities would amount to more than 7.
    Yes, which is why I was forced to argue that those things aren't actually located "in the box." I argued those things are in your head. Only the actual objects, rather than their properties, are contained within the box. The properties (observed, such as dimension or shape, anything that describes them) are contained in your head.

    Or so I say. You can disagree of course
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-03-2017 at 07:39 PM.

  14. #14
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    That's why you're being asked to define it!

    Dictionary.com's answer is closest to the answer "4" in my spoiler list. I call BS on arbitrariness though. If you and I aren't an object before we shake hands and after, it's odd that we're a single object while shaking hands. Looks to me like you've gotta go with 7 or 3 on that argument. Or one of the other "extremist" positions (my word, non cannon), like "infinity" or "0."
    If we are shaking hands, we will (probably) let go after a second or two, making it a very unstable connection.

  15. #15

    Default

    If you stare at the red circle long enough, then concentrate on the white space more circles may appear.

  16. #16
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    If we are shaking hands, we will (probably) let go after a second or two, making it a very unstable connection.
    I'm not sure how to argue against this unless you define your "stability" criteria more clearly.

    @ Summer, are you looking to get a cookie for trollin muh thread? You can has a cookie if you just ask
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-03-2017 at 08:28 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm not sure how to argue against this unless you define your "stability" criteria more clearly.

    @ Summer, are you looking to get a cookie for trollin muh thread? You can has a cookie if you just ask
    What if the circles are images of planets or solar systems far away with infinite objects in them? What if in my mind when I look at the image I see a fish?

    Hey Burn, how many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    a: a fish

  18. #18

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Since I know nothing about the degree of consciousness or sentience of the round circles
    , I do not know whether they are objects or subjects. :P
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  19. #19
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Since I know nothing about the degree of consciousness or sentience of the round circles
    , I do not know whether they are objects or subjects. :P
    I can't imagine that a quark would be very sentient

    Also, Summer, I can't tell if you're just being trolly or if you're trying to make a point. So I'll assume the former. As promised,

  20. #20
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    It's a turtle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #21
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm confused about how "object a in object a,b" is different from just "object a". That count collapses into 7 unique objects in this case. (Barring some good explanation of why you get to list the same object as different objects multiple times.)
    object in a different space is considered different, at least in naming. and it has to have some meaning differences. You can take the object out of the group for example while leave it in the space!

    as the 16 are collapsible in the 7 , the 7 are expandable in the 16.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    object in a different space is considered different, at least in naming. and it has to have some meaning differences. You can take the object out of the group for example while leave it in the space!

    as the 16 are collapsible in the 7 , the 7 are expandable in the 16.
    I'll have to agree with Hunter. Burn, there are more than 7 possibilities.

    Burn acknowledges that A,B,C, are independent objects, then joined AB,AC,BC and then finally ABC. But, ABC can be joined numerous ways, all three could be touching; A could join B&C; B can join C&A;and C can join B&A; also the distance between the two interjoined can theoretically mean new shapes/new obejects. If accounting for negative space, then wherever the circles are positioned could also mean new objects. Unless we assume that it is only one dimension, such as a flat surface, it would be one object with plots on it, so the answer would be either 1 object or infinite/arbitrary objects. If the box were removed and the circles were fixed, then 3 would be a possible correct answer.

  23. #23
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I'll have to agree with Hunter. Burn, there are more than 7 possibilities.

    Burn acknowledges that A,B,C, are independent objects, then joined AB,AC,BC and then finally ABC. But, ABC can be joined numerous ways, all three could be touching; A could join B&C; B can join C&A;and C can join B&A; also the distance between the two interjoined can theoretically mean new shapes/new obejects. If accounting for negative space, then wherever the circles are positioned could also mean new objects. Unless we assume that it is only one dimension, such as a flat surface, it would be one object with plots on it, so the answer would be either 1 object or infinite/arbitrary objects. If the box were removed and the circles were fixed, then 3 would be a possible correct answer.
    if I will go with A&B is different than B&A -which is valid- then the number would increase.
    space= 3 objects
    A&B= 3 objects
    B&A= 3 objects
    A&C= 3 objects
    C&A= 3 objects
    A&C= 3 objects
    C&A= 3 objects
    A&B&C= 4 objects
    A&C&B= 4 objects
    B&A&C= 4 objects
    B&C&A= 4 objects
    C&A&B= 4 objects
    C&B&A= 4 objects

    TOTAL= 45
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  24. #24
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I'll have to agree with Hunter. Burn, there are more than 7 possibilities.

    But, ABC can be joined numerous ways, all three could be touching;
    But they aren't touching at all. So producing possibilities that they are joined in different ways is meaningless. IF they are part of an object which contains ABC (and I'm saying they aren't) they are only part of a fixed object, not one that has multiple joining options. All that is in the space is what we see. No negative space, no fancy dimensions.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  25. #25
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    I think Rok's response to summer is correct.

    The question is how many objects are in the box, not how many objects might there be at a different time, or how many objects might there be in a different situation. The question is how many are there now. All three simple objects (object a, object b, and object c) aren't touching, so in the operative sense, they can't be touching because look, they're not touching.

    You have free choice over how to conceive of their position -- you could put an x, y, z axis anywhere. In a sense you have that choice over how to define their positions. But you're not imagining all their possible positions; once you have defined a plot, all three simple objects have a definite position, not infinity, and objects that are unions are unionized in a defined way, namely however they're actually unionized at the time. They could be unionized differently if the circumstances were different, but that's outside the scope of the question, unless you're arguing that any space contains all things that could possibly be in that space at all times instead of what is actually there. This is bizarre enough that I'm fairly comfortable rejecting it outright.

    Hunter: why is AB different from BA? Space doesn't have a defined direction and both of those define an object with identical properties. They're different names but they name the same thing. You could call me TB or you could call me The Burninator but that doesn't mean there are 2 different things, one being The Burninator and one being TB. They're just 2 names that define the same object. So it goes with AB and BA. Same object, different name. The question is "how many objects are in the box," not "how many names can you invent for the objects in the box."

  26. #26
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Hunter: why is AB different from BA? Space doesn't have a defined direction and both of those define an object with identical properties. They're different names but they name the same thing. You could call me TB or you could call me The Burninator but that doesn't mean there are 2 different things, one being The Burninator and one being TB. They're just 2 names that define the same object. So it goes with AB and BA. Same object, different name. The question is "how many objects are in the box," not "how many names can you invent for the objects in the box."
    I cannot call you "Burninator The"

    once you make a group from some objects, that group of objects introduces different things!

    it is either 3 objects, or some number that you did not include since the relationship between objects differ!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  27. #27
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Zero, I have no feelings toward them.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    But they aren't touching at all. So producing possibilities that they are joined in different ways is meaningless. IF they are part of an object which contains ABC (and I'm saying they aren't) they are only part of a fixed object, not one that has multiple joining options. All that is in the space is what we see. No negative space, no fancy dimensions.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I think Rok's response to summer is correct.

    The question is how many objects are in the box, not how many objects might there be at a different time, or how many objects might there be in a different situation. The question is how many are there now. All three simple objects (object a, object b, and object c) aren't touching, so in the operative sense, they can't be touching because look, they're not touching.

    You have free choice over how to conceive of their position -- you could put an x, y, z axis anywhere. In a sense you have that choice over how to define their positions. But you're not imagining all their possible positions; once you have defined a plot, all three simple objects have a definite position, not infinity, and objects that are unions are unionized in a defined way, namely however they're actually unionized at the time. They could be unionized differently if the circumstances were different, but that's outside the scope of the question, unless you're arguing that any space contains all things that could possibly be in that space at all times instead of what is actually there. This is bizarre enough that I'm fairly comfortable rejecting it outright.

    Hunter: why is AB different from BA? Space doesn't have a defined direction and both of those define an object with identical properties. They're different names but they name the same thing. You could call me TB or you could call me The Burninator but that doesn't mean there are 2 different things, one being The Burninator and one being TB. They're just 2 names that define the same object. So it goes with AB and BA. Same object, different name. The question is "how many objects are in the box," not "how many names can you invent for the objects in the box."
    I can't help it, I come from an urban planning/architecture background, we learn about spacial analysis.

    It's safe to say 3 objects is a correct answer, 1 is also a correct answer, and so is infinite/arbitrary.

    I'll describe why each answer is correct:

    3 objects: If the three objects are fixed and defined and permanent, then three objects is a correct answer.

    1 object: This is true if there is only a plane and the circles are plots on a surface, the object is the plane.

    Infinite/arbitrary: This is true if the surface and the plots are representations of the real world, the circles could for instance be movable or malleable, the view could be a matter of perspective i.e. imagine if our persepective is of a birds eye view and beneath the circles are layers of circles (as if we are looking down at stacked checkers pieces). In this instance is also the concept of negative space.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-04-2017 at 05:12 PM.

  29. #29
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Summer: it has been specified that the simple objects are NOT malleable. They are quarks.

    The situation is meant to be as you explained when you argued for 3 objects in your post.

    You could still think it was infinite if you were allowed to arbitrarily label things like "the left side of that one" and "the top half" and "the top quarter," etc, as valid objects.

    You could still think it was 7 if you thought that objects can combine and form other objects (ie unions of some kind). (4 is also like this, but has certain rules for allowed vs disallowed unions.)

    Your argument for 1 is kinda meh at best -- space isn't an object, it's a medium. It's the space which objects can fill, if they are present. It isn't an object itself. The situation is meant to be in 4-space, but it shouldn't matter whether you're considering n-space.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-04-2017 at 09:40 PM.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Summer: it has been specified that the simple objects are NOT malleable. They are quarks.

    The situation is meant to be as you explained when you argued for 3 objects in your post.

    You could still think it was infinite if you were allowed to arbitrarily label things like "the left side of that one" and "the top half" and "the top quarter," etc, as valid objects.

    You could still think it was 7 if you thought that objects can combine and form other objects (ie unions of some kind). (4 is also like this, but has certain rules for allowed vs disallowed unions.)

    Your argument for 1 is kinda meh at best -- space isn't an object, it's a medium. It's the space which objects can fill, if they are present. It isn't an object itself. The situation is meant to be in 4-space, but it shouldn't matter whether you're considering n-space.
    I'll explain my reasoning once again.

    Infinite/arbitrary: The image is a representation of the real world. The circles represent the real world, the real world is in 3 dimensions, that is measured by X axis (horizontal), Y axis (vertical), and Z (depth). So the circles are a matter of perspective, if the circles are representations of the real world then they can be anything, even if we imagine them as quarks and assume that they are fixed, from our perspective such as birds eye i.e. from above, what we could be looking at is a stack of quarks or numerous quarks in a sequence that from our vantage point, many objects could be hidden.

    1 object: This is assuming we are looking at a plane or surface, such as a flat piece of paper. There is no depth, just a flat plane. They only object then is the plane. In a paper analogy, a piece of paper with nothing on it is a piece of paper, a piece of paper with three circles drawn on it is still a piece of paper.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-05-2017 at 02:46 AM.

  31. #31
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    So you actually think there is 3, like me. All the other options are still playing games with "space" or "dimensions" and not using it the way the OP clearly meant.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So you actually think there is 3, like me. All the other options are still playing games with "space" or "dimensions" and not using it the way the OP clearly meant.
    Is a piece of paper with three circles on it three objects?

    Looking down at three stacks of checkers pieces, are there only three checkers pieces?

  33. #33
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    But, unless you think burn was trying to be tricky, the OP makes it clear that we are looking at the 3 objects just as 3 objects. The discussions points are around philosophy, not spatial issues.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    But, unless you think burn was trying to be tricky, the OP makes it clear that we are looking at the 3 objects just as 3 objects. The discussions points are around philosophy, not spatial issues.
    My reasoning is that 1,3, and infinite/arbitrary are correct answers.

    Those answers will all pass the OP test.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-05-2017 at 03:09 AM.

  35. #35
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    if the circles are representations of the real world then they can be anything, even if we imagine them as quarks and assume that they are fixed, from our perspective such as birds eye i.e. from above, what we could be looking at is a stack of quarks or numerous quarks in a sequence that from our vantage point, many objects could be hidden.
    Summer, here's why Rok is right and you should stop and actually read the posts.

    It's been made clear to you that this is not allowed under the rules. If you think there is a "stack" of things, you're flatly wrong. It's been specified that we're talking about a block of space with 3 quarks in it. You're the one adding perspectives, like saying "what if I'm not allowed to look at the block from whatever angle I want" (counterpoint: you are), and then saying "I wouldn't have enough information to know whether there were any more quarks."

    Your argument for "1" is valid, albeit silly, and is similar to the reason I included "1" as a valid answer. But your reasoning for "infinite" has nothing to do with the question. Your reasoning for 3 is strong, which is why Rok is taking you to be agreeing with her on the philosophical issue.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Same rules. You can just answer the poll and leave, or see below for a discussion that will carry on at great, unnecessary length .

    Question: "how many objects are in this box?"(When counting, keep in mind: can larger objects be created out of smaller ones? Spoiler box might help.)


    Further rules:
    1) there is no air or anything else in the box.
    2) the box itself and no part of the box count as "inside the box."
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically; of course they have a "top half" and "bottom half" theoretically but imagine they're electrons or something that is already smallest and can't be cut.

    A short explanation of each answer option (i.e. "why on earth would anyone select that choice??")

    0: "things don't exist; the only thing that exists is my thoughts thus there is nothing in the box."
    1: "multiplicity is an illusion; all things are one despite appearing as multiple."
    3: I feel like this one is obvious so I won't explain it . The issue with this view is that it's not going to allow composite things, ie. things composed of other things. That is, only the tiniest things are things and everything else -- things we appear to deal with on a daily basis, such as people of any non-subatomic-thing, is going to not really be a thing since the only "things" are the smallest.
    4: The two objects close together are close enough to form a union object, so there are the 3 simple objects and that one object that is the union of those two objects.
    7: distance doesn't matter -- there are the three simple objects, as well as 4 union objects (the union of all 3, the union of 1 and 2, the union of 1 and 3, and the union of 2 and 3.)
    Infinity: what about the top half of each and the bottom half? Left side and right side? You can count an arbitrarily large number of objects since any object is infinitely conceptually divisible. In other words, you can have either no objects or an infinite number. There is no in between.



    Last Random Friday Question
    Next Random Friday Question
    I'll, yet again, explain my reasoning for why 1,3, and infinite/arbitrary are all correct answers and how each answer passes the OP test.

    The OP test is as follows:
    Question: "how many objects are in this box?"(When counting, keep in mind: can larger objects be created out of smaller ones? Spoiler box might help.)


    Further rules:
    1) there is no air or anything else in the box.
    2) the box itself and no part of the box count as "inside the box."
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically; of course they have a "top half" and "bottom half" theoretically but imagine they're electrons or something that is already smallest and can't be cut.

    1 Object:
    In this answer we have only a surface, a plane, within the box. An analogy would be a paper with three circles on it.

    Can a piece of paper with three circles exist without air or anything else? Yes.
    "The box itself and no part of the box count as "inside the box." The paper analogy passes this test.
    In the third test we can assume that the paper or plane can not be cut physically.

    So 1 object passes the OP test.

    3 Objects:
    In this answer we have three defined perminant objects (assuming time is a factor), they are fixed (meaning can not be moved, nor can they change shape).

    Can these objects exist without air? yes.
    Can they exist without the box? yes.
    They can not be cut physically. Yes.

    Infinite/Arbitrary:
    In this answer we assume that the image represents the real world, the real world contains dimensions or an X,Y, and Z axis. In this instance it is a matter of perspective, there can be infinite possibilities. An analogy would be looking down into a box and seeing three stacks of checkers pieces, how many in the stack is unknown, the sequence can be finite or infinite.

    Can these objects exist without air? yes.
    Can they exist without the box? yes.
    Are not cut physically. It passes this test.

    Further reasoning for the infinite/arbitrary answer is that the OP states that the image represents a box and further amends "It's been specified that we're talking about a block of space." This implies that the image does represent a real world three dimensional box or block, making a stack of checkers, or a sequence of quarks a valid answer.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-05-2017 at 04:44 AM.

  37. #37
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Infinite/Arbitrary:
    In this answer we assume that the image represents the real world, the real world contains dimensions or an X,Y, and Z axis. In this instance it is a matter of perspective, there can be infinite possibilities. An analogy would be looking down into a box and seeing three stacks of checkers pieces, how many in the stack is unknown, the sequence can be finite or infinite.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Further rules:
    1) there is no air or anything else in the box.
    Explain how these "stacks" can exist in the box without being another thing in the box?

    It is specified in the rules that there isn't anything else in the box, and your argument is predicated on us simply forgetting this fact. But we're not forgetting it. You need to show that there are infinite objects in the box without claiming that we don't know whether or not there are more objects in the box. We do. It's in the rules. The rules state that there are 3 simple objects in the box and nothing else. On any normal reading of an English sentence, that would include a hidden stack of more simple objects.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-05-2017 at 05:14 AM.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Explain how these "stacks" can exist in the box without being another thing in the box?

    It is specified in the rules that there isn't anything else in the box, and your argument is predicated on us simply forgetting this fact. But we're not forgetting it. You need to show that there are infinite objects in the box without claiming that we don't know whether or not there are more objects in the box. We do. It's in the rules. The rules state that there are 3 simple objects in the box and nothing else. On any normal reading of an English sentence, that would include a hidden stack of more simple objects.
    The rules imply that nothing exists besides the objects. That does not invalidate a sequence of objects.

    If I stack three sequences of checkers, snap a photo from above and then ask how many checkers pieces are there? and then further remind you that there is nothing else besides the objects in the box. Does that invalidate the stack or sequence?

  39. #39
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    The rules imply that nothing exists besides the objects. That does not invalidate a sequence of objects.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically;
    Explain how the sequence of objects counts as one of the simple objects in the box?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    1) there is no air or anything else in the box.
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically;
    Either: your "sequence" of objects is just ONE object, in which case it isn't infinite,
    Or: it can be divided physically.

    In case 1, you have only 3 objects, not infinity.

    In case 2, you broke the rules of the game, which specify that there are only 3, indivisible objects in the box. You are asking us to forget that we know that there are only 3 indivisible objects in the box to claim that there are 3 divisible objects in the box.

    TB: "There are 3 simple objects, how do we count them?"
    Summer: "We count the simple objects as not simple objects."
    TB: "That was literally not the question."
    Summer: "yes it was."

    But it wasn't. The question was about 3 indivisible objects -- call them quarks or electrons. To get sequences or stacks of objects, you need to add objects to the box, which is invalid according to the rules, which clearly state that there are 3 simple objects in the box.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Explain how the sequence of objects counts as one of the simple objects in the box?


    Either: your "sequence" of objects is just ONE object, in which case it isn't infinite,
    Or: it can be divided physically.

    In case 1, you have only 3 objects, not infinity.

    In case 2, you broke the rules of the game, which specify that there are only 3, indivisible objects in the box. You are asking us to forget that we know that there are only 3 indivisible objects in the box to claim that there are 3 divisible objects in the box.

    TB: "There are 3 simple objects, how do we count them?"
    Summer: "We count the simple objects as not simple objects."
    TB: "That was literally not the question."
    Summer: "yes it was."

    But it wasn't. The question was about 3 indivisible objects -- call them quarks or electrons. To get sequences or stacks of objects, you need to add objects to the box, which is invalid according to the rules, which clearly state that there are 3 simple objects in the box.
    In the stack of checkers analogy, the checkers pieces are not cut physically. They are stacked in a sequence of individual pieces, not divided.

    Nowhere in the OP does it state that there are three objects. That would answer the question prematurely, the OP displays an image of three circles and asks "how many objects are there?" I provided reasoning for why 1,3, and infinite/arbitrary are all valid answers.

    Infinte/arbitrary survives your scrutiny. A sequence or stack of checkers survives the "nothing else" test as nothing else besides the sequence or stacks exist. A sequence or stack survives the "can't be divided test" because a stack of checkers pieces is not one piece divided nor cut many times, but a stack of multiple individual checkers pieces.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •