I appreciate you reading about the trilemma, but the next step is to apply it to your thinking.
Hey hey
I am in no way convinced by this trilemma. I would like to first see how you apply it before I could consider such a thing.
Did you actually think about this, or do you think that the trilemma does not apply to mathematics?
Well check this out.
I gave you the option to go on the offense and you said "Anyway, is there anything you wanted to discuss aside from semantics, or do you truly want to delve into the definition of nihilism?"
I took you up on the offer and asked you "What does meaningless mean to you and how does it fit in with your philosophy?"
You post this article about - the trilemma - which has a section that says "The trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."
I assume that when you replied with this trilemma, it has a relevance to your philosophy and it is intergal to how you prove the impossibility to demonstrate ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.
I supplied a very simple math equation (.eg 1+1+1+1=4) for you to demonstrate how the trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.
Here is my question again
If I have a seed and no others then we label that seed as one or singular to express quantity.
We label the seed, "seed". This way you and I cannot get confused when we communicate.
I find another seed of the same variety and label my quality as 2 seeds. I find another and label that quantity as 3. I find yet another one and call this quantity 4.
1+1+1+1=4.
The truth is I have seeds of the same variety that yield the number 4.
1. Show me how the thought experiment (.eg trilemma) demonstrates the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?
Spoken language yields to the trilemma by being circular (every word is defined in terms of other words, and there are finitely many words), whereas the formal language (mathematics and logic) are axiomatic. Mathematics is literally nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; nothing about physical reality can be determined from assumptions and definitions.
2. How can you demonstrate that the word seed is defined in terms of other words?
As for "labeling" seeds with numbers, refer to the ship of Theseus.
Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia
In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
It is supposed that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle was kept in a harbor as a museum piece, and as the years went by some of the wooden parts began to rot and were replaced by new ones; then, after a century or so, every part had been replaced.
The question then is if the "restored" ship is still the same object as the original.
My intent to label the seeds with numbers was to show quantity (.eg to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?).
The ship of Theseus is not a relevant question as the thought experiment relates to; if components are replaced does something remain fundamentally the same object.
We are talking about a mathematical outcome and the truth of the equation.
While a seed does not have obvious components to it, it is comprised of molecules that are shedding and accumulating all the time.
Lets say you and I are walking together. I find a unit of reproduction of a flowering plant, capable of developing into another such plant. I call it a seed to differentiate from other things and so we I communicate to each other about this unit of reproduction.
3. Does the seed have an identity and is identity meaningless?
Now please excuse me however you seemed to have missed a question. I shall repeat it.
My uncle dies and I notice that every person - who lived on this earth - eventually dies.
4. It is a certainty that all who live will die. Show me how this thought experiment demonstrates the impossibility of proving this truth?
Cheers