**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[a500lbgorilla]

As far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion about whether or not the singularity exists, not whether or not it can be defined. I feel like rilla is muddying the waters with philosophy.

I really enjoy philosophy.

[OngBonga]

I really enjoy philosophy.

Philosophy is cool, until you basically say "what is clearly defined is not clearly defined because philosophy".

It's like saying 1+1 does not = 2. I'm thinking "but it does, don't be silly".

[a500lbgorilla]

Philosophy is cool, until you basically say "what is clearly defined is not clearly defined because philosophy".

It's like saying 1+1 does not = 2. I'm thinking "but it does, don't be silly".

You keep simply saying that you know these things.

[a500lbgorilla]

You keep simply saying that you know these things.

Obviously there's infinity!

[MadMojoMonkey]

You keep simply saying that you know these things.

Well, if you accept that 1 means 1, then you also accept that + is worth exploring, then math.

The labels and names may be whatever, but the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... is there.

So the argument that 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal truth is interesting.
The question of whether or not it would be true if there were no mind to learn it is also interesting.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, if you accept that 1 means 1, then you also accept that + is worth exploring, then math.

The labels and names may be whatever, but the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... is there.

So the argument that 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal truth is interesting.
The question of whether or not it would be true if there were no mind to learn it is also interesting.

Yes, I agree that math is worth exploring.

But math is rules making where physics is rules-exploring (or some better term). And I much prefer exploring the rules of the working world than exploring what can be crafted with clever rules.

There still is a lot of overlap.