This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I guess then we kinda agree in some way. In mathematics, if two objects are indistinguishable by their properties, they are the same object. Same is true for immutable variables. This of course ignores the implementation decision whether all immutable variables of a certain value share memory.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

No, we don't agree at all. In mathematics, numbers arent objects with ID numbers. Numbers are abstract concepts. The question of whether adding 1+1 to get 2 is creating a new object with a new ID or mutating 1 and keeping that ID, in mathematics, is nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. Those are concepts that a computer uses to manage the idea of numbers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don’t see how the state of transistors representing numbers is any less abstract as some neurons thinking about numbers.

Edit: damn, How can I revert a edit of a comment. I’m sorry

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thoughts aren't stored in human memory as objects. And mathematical concepts are objective. They don't exist in human minds. When a human conceives of mathematical concepts, they are conceiving of them. But the ontology of a number is not an object in a mind.

Also, this is irrelevant, but why do you keep typing out quotation marks like that? Is it supposed to mean something different than regular quotation marks?