The concept of 1 is wrong?

The number is a measure of repetitiveness of mind's recognition of generalized concepts of the objects. When I see no apples, I say there is zero apples. That means I know what an apple is, I have a mental image of it in my mind, tied to its name. If I do not find in reality a general copy of that mental image, I know that there is zero apples in front of me. When I notice that there is one apple, it is a proof that I know how to relate mental image and the name of an object to its real representation, even though there is no word "apple" on an apple. When I claim that there are two apples or any amount more, that proves that I am pretty well practiced at objects recognition. I can also manipulate numbers of objects purely in my mind , dis-attached from the actual objects. I can also mentally play with numbers only, as if they were some real thing, which is an exercise prior to me using math again in relation to real life's problems of manipulating our way through the myriad of concepts we ourselves invented.

Dreage wrote; In that case, any observation of a "thing" would need to take into account it's "anti-thing" to be completely correct. 1 would be wrong in a sense and 2 would be a more correct representation of reality. Duality.

Duality is an Illusion based upon duplicity, deception, Guilefulness, Absoluely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge having a dual Quality.

Duality does not exist in the Real World.

The World of Reality is based upon whole objects, Individuality, individual objects having no relative numerical value, Pure Math.

Prime as defined is an Absurdity.

The Universe, the Reality of Everything, is based upon Pure Math, Indivisible whole numbers, Singularities, having no relative, numerical, value.

Why not count 0, 3, 9, 5, 7, 2, 1, 6, 8, 10 or place zero at the end of all numbers?

We could but that would not be very practical that's all. I agree that

Set of numbers is just a tool, like a screwdriver

, however you are going to use a screwdriver and not a hammer on a screw, if I may develop this analogy further. The point is that the set of numbers is a tool but very useful one, since it couples well with our thinking and until now explained lot of things.

Or, may be, like a screwdriver that explains to us only the groove of a screw, the math is also limited in what or how it can do for us.

The concept that an Single Object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1 exists as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, is in Error.

A Single Object having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being central to a Trans-Finite Set; a Trans-Finite set existing without beginning or end, being Infinite from beginning to end. (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc., the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite).

A Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1, does not exist as Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity; a Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1 existing as the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process, being central to a Trans-Finite Set, O/1(n)

Pure math is base upon the Trans-Finite Reality of a Singular object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1; a trans-finite set, a series, a continuum such as Space-Time, a process such as the Evolutionary Process, being Infinite from beginning to end, (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite) existing without Beginning or End, existing as O/1(n).

In order for an Single Object to qualify as an Individuality, an indivisible Singularity, said Singularity must be Infinitely Finite, must not have relative, numerical value, must exist alone in the Emptiness; the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless.

The Reality, the existence, of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, of a Quantum Singularity having no relative, numerical, value is Uncertain, being that said Singularity is Static, exists without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction is not accurately measurable as to location and momentum.

-- Updated June 10th, 2012, 1:15 am to add the following --

The concept that an Single Object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1 exists as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, is in Error.

A Single Object having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being central to a Trans-Finite Set; a Trans-Finite set existing without beginning or end, being Infinite from beginning to end. (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc., the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite).

A Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1, does not exist as Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity; a Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1 existing as the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process, being central to a Trans-Finite Set, O/1(n)

Pure math is base upon the Trans-Finite Reality of a Singular object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1; a trans-finite set, a series, a continuum such as Space-Time, a process such as the Evolutionary Process, being Infinite from beginning to end, (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite) existing without Beginning or End, existing as O/1(n).

In order for an Single Object to qualify as an Individuality, an indivisible Singularity, said Singularity must be Infinitely Finite, must not have relative, numerical value, must exist alone in the Emptiness; the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless.

The Reality, the existence, of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, of a Quantum Singularity having no relative, numerical, value is Uncertain, being that said Singularity is Static, exists without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction is not accurately measurable as to location and momentum.

-- Updated June 10th, 2012, 1:15 am to add the following --

The concept that an Single Object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1 exists as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, is in Error.

A Single Object having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being central to a Trans-Finite Set; a Trans-Finite set existing without beginning or end, being Infinite from beginning to end. (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc., the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite).

A Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1, does not exist as Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity; a Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1 existing as the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process, being central to a Trans-Finite Set, O/1(n)

Pure math is base upon the Trans-Finite Reality of a Singular object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1; a trans-finite set, a series, a continuum such as Space-Time, a process such as the Evolutionary Process, being Infinite from beginning to end, (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite) existing without Beginning or End, existing as O/1(n).

In order for an Single Object to qualify as an Individuality, an indivisible Singularity, said Singularity must be Infinitely Finite, must not have relative, numerical value, must exist alone in the Emptiness; the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless.

The Reality, the existence, of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, of a Quantum Singularity having no relative, numerical, value is Uncertain, being that said Singularity is Static, exists without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction is not accurately measurable as to location and momentum.

-- Updated June 10th, 2012, 1:15 am to add the following --

The concept that an Single Object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1 exists as an Individuality, as an Indivisible Singularity, is in Error.

A Single Object having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being central to a Trans-Finite Set; a Trans-Finite set existing without beginning or end, being Infinite from beginning to end. (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc., the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite).

A Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1, does not exist as Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity; a Single Object having a relative, numerical value of One-1 existing as the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process, being central to a Trans-Finite Set, O/1(n)

Pure math is base upon the Trans-Finite Reality of a Singular object having a relative, numerical, value of One-1; a trans-finite set, a series, a continuum such as Space-Time, a process such as the Evolutionary Process, being Infinite from beginning to end, (Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature, of nothingness, of outer space, unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless, not finite) existing without Beginning or End, existing as O/1(n).

In order for an Single Object to qualify as an Individuality, an indivisible Singularity, said Singularity must be Infinitely Finite, must not have relative, numerical value, must exist alone in the Emptiness; the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness being meaningless.

The Reality, the existence, of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, of a Quantum Singularity having no relative, numerical, value is Uncertain, being that said Singularity is Static, exists without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction is not accurately measurable as to location and momentum.

-- Updated June 10th, 2012, 1:20 am to add the following --

sorry about that, I was not ready to post, posts were in error.

Our concept of "1" is wrong.

The concept of "1" cannot be wrong because it is an axiom, not a proposition about the real world, or about logic.

Some axioms lead to more useful conclusions than others and it is conceivable that another concept may prove even more useful than "1" However, "1" has served us very well so far and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so, and no reason to believe it is an obstacle to a "unified theory of existence", whatever that might mean.

You are t

-- Updated June 11th, 2012, 10:24 am to add the following --

Language is just so much Babel.

Number; particular numeral assigned to an object so as to designate its place in a series.

An Individual, a Single Object, should not be given numerical value unless it is to designate its place in a series, is part of a Plurality

Relatively speaking; a Singularity that has no relative value has no numerical value, should not be referred to as the number One object.

The first page in a legal paper is not given a page number. A trust deed is not given a number unless it is a 2nd, a 3rd or a 4th, trust deed.

-- Updated June 11th, 2012, 1:09 pm to add the following --

Steve wrote;




Location: UK



Re: The concept of 1 is wrong?




Post Number:#21 Today, 4:33 am



Dreager wrote:Our concept of "1" is wrong.


The concept of "1" cannot be wrong because it is an axiom, not a proposition about the real world, or about logic.

Some axioms lead to more useful conclusions than others and it is conceivable that another concept may prove even more useful than "1" However, "1" has served us very well so far and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so, and no reason to believe it is an obstacle to a "unified theory of existence", whatever that might mean.

Wayne wrote;

Could explain the consept of one as an axiom?

One of something can mean zero of something else. It is all about relationships between the particles, objects, forces. Numbers are fluid, like water, they are attachable and disattachable, they are constantly on a move. Be it number 1 or many of 1's, they are an electronic configuration in our minds, a program, depicted through methods of writing. Can you imagine, it takes an entire 12 years of school and then college to, hopefully successfully, download this program into human brain! Something is wrong here. Not 12 hours or 12 seconds, but about 1/5 of human life!

Singularity is Trismegistus.

A Singularity in order to have a numerical value of One-1, must be relative, a Singularity that is not relative has no Numerical value, has a numerical value of Zero-O;

A Singularity as it issues forth, comes to light, to mind, is given one of two different names, identities, numerical values, one being given a relative, numerical value of zero-O and the other being given a relative of On-1, the two being the same yet different.

An Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity existing alone in the Emptiness, has no relative, has a numerical value of Zero-O, the Motion of said singularity being meaningless, not having Angular Momentum, not having velocity of Speed and Direction, not having displacement, being motionless.

An Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity in order to have numerical value must be relative, a Singularity having no relative value can not be given the numerical value of One-1.

Number; 5. one of a series of things distinguished by or marked with numerals. 3. a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or in noting a total. 4. the particular numeral assigned to an object so as to designate its place in a series: house number; license number. 6. a certain collection, company, or quantity not precisely reckoned, but usually considerable or Large.


The Third aspect, quality, of Singularity being a Static, Steady, State, of Quantum Singularity in which an Untold Number of Individualities, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities exist with none being relative to another, none having Numerical value, the Totality in number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities being unaccountable, not being fathomable, being Infinitely Large.

(Nested quote removed.)


The concept of "1" cannot be wrong because it is an axiom, not a proposition about the real world, or about logic.

Some axioms lead to more useful conclusions than others and it is conceivable that another concept may prove even more useful than "1" However, "1" has served us very well so far and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so, and no reason to believe it is an obstacle to a "unified theory of existence", whatever that might mean.

I should've left out the part about unified theory of existence. That I said that was more about entertaining the possibility that we could understand the world to a point where there are no more unanswerable questions.

To say 'one' has served us well is unjustifiable, since as homo sapiens we have never known anything else. Neil DeGrasse Tyson had a bit of a rant about this on youtube somewhere. The genetic difference between chimps and us is small, yet the difference in intelligence is so great. Therefore any small genetic difference better than us could be assumed to be as great a leap in intellect. Chimps don't do math. We do math. This hypothetical genetic variant one better than us could be conceived of having a concept of reality which transcends reductionism, transcending the reduction of things to singular entities. Or the concept of 'one'.

I'm going to postulate something preposterous.

Our concept of "1" is wrong.

If "1" is wrong, then what does e^(i x Pi) equal?

(Nested quote removed.)


If "1" is wrong, then what does e^(i x Pi) equal?

The works of Chopin don't have much to say on the physics of harmony.