What does the word fifteen mean?

Answer 1

The meaning of "fifteen" is a bit like the meaning of "one" only different. "One" denotes a sense of continuity and non-interruptedness. There are people who say "the universe is one", or even that they are "at one" with the universe, which is the same thing really, but from a subjective standpoint. Indeed, the "Uni" part of "Universe" also suggests that everything is one. Therefore "one" is a pervasive sense of the continuity of all things, and a statement of the totality and wholeness of being. Mathematicians, however, use the word "one" to mean almost the opposite of this. By postulating the concept of quantity, that things are discrete, and that we can name groupings and make patterns on the basis of these groups of discrete objects, they deny not only the oneness of all things, but also the uniqueness of all the things that make up the oneness.

This fallacy and the erasure of uniqueness of each thing, the assumption that things which are merely similar upon superficial analysis are in fact uniform and identical, actually allows useful operations to be done. The set of operations that are thus made available are called arithmetic functions. If one assumes that something which is a mere part can in fact be called "one", and that something superficially similar to this "one" can also be called "one", the pair of things taken together is then called, by protagonists of the arithmetic way of thinking "two".

Each discrete and unique, though similar, item is treated as identical in all ways, except that of having actual identity with each other. Such utter homogeneous uniformity would not be useful, of itself, in the arithmetic way of thinking, but every time "one" object is taken along with others of its type, a series of names have been made which produce sets descriptive of quantity, and this is the root of measurement. These sets are named "numbers"; and it is assumed - although completely different types of objects may be being considered, and even the ways in which these types of objects share features that are deedmed "uni"form, allowing them to be quantified within a group may vary - that the ways in which the quantities themselves behave is predictable. "fifteen" is a name of an arithmetic set, where a given grouping of objects deemed to be identical for the purposes at hand, are present. I will now describe "fifteen" using terms of quantity which have already been introduced. If we take "one" of something, and place it next to another "one", we achieve, as mentioned before, another entity: "two"

If we now take this entity "two" and repeat the process we find another quantity, which we may call "two" squared (this is a geometrical conception, where one might consider the sides of a square as having numerical length, and then compare this quantitification with that of the area of the square).

If we now take "two squared" and repeat the operation, grouping this with another "two squared", we have a group which can be called "two cubed", again using a gemetrical analogue, this time of a solid object.

If we repeat the process, we will have a group which can be described as being equal to "two times two cubed".

If we now remive the initial "one" we started with from "two times two cubed" the remaining quantity is the quantity which is called "fifteen". In spite of the usefulness of terms such as "two" and "fifteen", and of the operations performed by arithmetic functions, this does not in any way disprove the fundamental unity of all things. Indeed, no proof is made at any point, merely assumptions are made along with the crassest form of empirical interfacing with elements within the "uni"verse.

However, due to the pervasiveness and casualness with which arithmetic methods are applied in the modern world, many people have forgotten that there is really no such thing as "two" or "fifteen", that these are fictional concepts used for a specific purpose. Instead, many people have come to believe that these artmetic descriptors have an ontological value. They have not. When "two" - so called - objects are investigated with any but the most rudimentary powers of observation or analysis, it will be found that their mutual identity does not exist, and that they vary not only fundamentally in both space and in their constituent matter, but also in innumerable variations of both a macro- and microcosmic nature. If one must use numbers only "one" can be properly supported, and that is merely as a postulation. Although other numbers could also be put forward as postulations, they are not such, in fact, but are derivations from "one" using the dubious assumptions outlined above. No other number can stand reasonable scrutiny, and they must tehrefore all be regarded as fictions. However, there is a vast literature which has investigated the implications of these fictions, and the resulting system of thought has proven a rich and fascinating source of *analogues* - that is, systematic fictional equivalents - with which we can describe our world, and communicate with each other about aspects of it which are important to our subjective functions within the greater "one"ness.