**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think I do need a sense of numbers to know this. The number of brothers I miss is irrelevant, and not even a part of my emotional attachment. I only know that I miss them. I can miss multiple things w/o any sense of how many things I miss.

The argument that humans behave in human ways doesn't lend to any reality, IMO.
The notion that Earth creatures do Earth creature things isn't any sound argument, and neither is a notion that all creatures in the universe do the same things as far as numbers are concerned, IMO.

Trying to make an argument that something intangible and unmeasurable is real is no easy task.


Show me 1. Point to 1. Help me identify and define 1 in practical terms of observations.
Certainly, you can show me 1 of something, and 1 of something else, ad nauseum, but you can't show me 1.
You can only keep waving your hands around about what you mean until I concede that I understand you.

You can just as easily describe to me a unicorn, and tell me all the properties of unicorns, and show me pictures of unicorns and all sorts of things describing unicorns. None of that makes unicorns real.

Utility is not proof of reality.

[OngBonga]

I mean, nature didn't create the number 1, nature created integers and we named them. But we're not having a discussion about semantics here as best I'm aware. It's not about what we call it, it's about the concept of a number 1 existing without human observation.