Write4U:

No "B" is your choice, never mine.

If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?

That's the point. There is no alternative . Can you cite one?

I did. In the

*very next sentence *after the one you quoted in order to ask this question.

OK, if you want to end up in Plato's Cave?

You didn't answer the question I asked you.

That's because the truth is you did

*nothing* to rule out the alternative. But you don't want to admit that, so you tried to distract and ignore instead. This, too, is dishonest.

And what is it that makes you like bananas? Bio-chemistry?

Is the nutritional value of bananas not based on bio-chemical interaction with our symbiont bacteria. Without our symbiont bacterial friends we would die. These critters are of existential value to humans. Do bananas have value? You bet they do. Potassium is a necessary chemical for many living organisms.

Try to focus.

Once again: your claim is that

**everything has a ***mathematical* value.

In addition, you wrote "Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than 'its magical'". The word 'other' in there appears to be superfluous to the position you are taking, especially since you didn't mention any 'other' idea before you wrote that sentence. So, your claim appears to be the following:

**non-mathematical concepts cannot be understood in other than magical terms**.

In fact, since your overarching claim is that the universe is nothing but mathematics, a logical consequence is that, in your worldview,

**there are no non-mathematical concepts**.

To be consistent, therefore, you have to say that a banana is mathematics, and it has a "mathematical value", because there can be no other kinds of values in a purely mathematical universe.

And yet, here you are, completely incapable or telling me what the mathematical value of a banana is. You have talked about "nutritional value" - which, in passing, I might also point out might have nothing to do with why I like bananas - but you've made no link to mathematics.

In your position, I assume that at some point you'll argue that nutrition is a mathematical concept because

*everything *is mathematical. But that's just begging the question: assuming what you need to demonstrate.

You have done

*nothing* to rule out the likelihood that my liking bananas - or the topic of nutrition, for that matter - is a non-mathematical concept. You can't just define yourself into having a mathematical universe. You need to provide some argument (and preferably evidence) for your claim that there is no alternative.

All very mathematical, wouldn't you say?

Where's the maths?

Again, dualism is your position, not mine.

You have made no case in support of that proposition, either.

Every physical thing does have a value, regardless if humans can perform any measurements.

In other words, that's just an article we're supposed to take on faith, without evidence.

It is also a completely unfalsifiable assertion. If I point at

*anything* and claim that it doesn't have a mathematical value, you'll just say "Oh, but it does. It's just that us humans can't perform any measurement to detect it!"

That's exactly the same as the invisible God, or the invisible dragon in my garage.

See post #37 for "kinds" of values.

I see no "kinds of values" there. Besides, what you need to do is to show that there are

*only* mathematical values. If you can't do that, you should at least try to back up your subsidiary claim that everything has a mathematical value. But you've haven't even tried. And now you're giving excuses that makes it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Who says that social values have no mathematical impact on the environment?

You're obviously completely at sea here. Keep your eye on the ball. Try to support your claims.

Really? Can you explain the mathematical value and consequence of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of say, solar power?

No, I cannot. Please tell me: what is the mathematical value of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of solar power?

Because, remember, you said everything has a mathematical value. Is this one 17? 106? 3.5? pi/6?

No, I am not required to give you numbers...

If you say so.

So, there

*other* kinds of mathematical value, apart from numbers? What are they?

**Elegant Shape Of Eiffel Tower Solved Mathematically By University Of Colorado Professor**

You still haven't managed to answer the question I asked you: what is the mathematical value of the Eiffel Tower?

Let me try to help. Are you claiming that

*the shape* of the tower is its mathematical value? Is that all? Does it have just one mathematical value, or more than one?

Is "mathematical value" always defined by shape, then? Everything has a mathematical value, you say. Is the mathematical value always the shape? Or do different things have different kinds of mathematical value?

Perhaps your claim is that

*all* the properties of everything are "mathematical values". So, for instance, the nutritional content of a banana is a "mathematical value". And its value as an art object is a mathematical value? And its yellow colour is a mathematical value.

The problem with this again, though, is that it begs the question. If the claim that you want to prove is that "there are only mathematical values", you can't do that by just assuming from the start that there are only mathematical values. You need to make an argument that isn't circular.