Is the canadian right?

>>8712731
yes

>>8712731
Yes.

>>8712731
yes

In an esoteric sense, yes, but not in any conventional sense.

It does not matter whether or not math exists so long as it can still be used. The very concept of the number 1 can be regarded as an abstraction designed by the human mind in an effort to parse the wholeness of reality, but pretending it exists has benefits regardless.

As odd as it sounds, an objects existence or nonexistence has no real bearing on its function.

>>8712731
We can apply that logic to anything. The images we see with our eyes are interpreted and processed via the brain which we understand to be an objective reality. How can we be so sure our interpretation is the same as the person next to us? We can't, but we have a yearning for clarity; the universe I perceive may just be an enigma for the universe you perceive. The results seem to work so we don't question these aspects of the mind mainly because it's an absurdity to do so.

In short: how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real.

File: 1467783713168.jpg (265KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 720x720px

>>8712731
>no your just demonstrating X
>your not proving X exists

Really activates those almonds.

>>8712755
Well yes, but there are commonly agreed-upon, albeit imperfect, standards of proof. The issue is whether OP's post adheres to these standards.

Imagine if you asked me to prove that cats exist, and I replied by typing the word "cat".

>>8712762
Well, that's not 100% accurate. You haven't presented any logical operators for 'cat'. If however you wanted to sort of proof 'cat' you could present several languages' worth of the word cat.

Or perhaps even synonyms?

Basically even if there is no absolute proof the more reference points you provide gives us a rounding approximation sufficient to conclude 'cat' for all cat-related purposes.

Also dogs ftw

>>8712731
Is it proof that nothing exists when I close my eyes. Like the whole universe ends man so far out there. Trippy stuff xd. Le kys. Almonds math negative ì

>>8712762
the greater context of my post is that the standard of proof is also based on linear human terms, which we attribute to universal objectivity. the very concept of objectivity is the subjective approach conjured by the human mind. that is not to say that we should extinguish the notion of empirical evidence, but understand that the spectrum of sentience is merely one approach in which the universe can be viewed.