Talk:Logic Manipulation/@comment-33216323-20171107071253/@comment-29564364-20171110020532

«Hmmm, then perhaps 'quasi-abstract' would be a more appropriate adjective.» "Quasi-abstract" is not a valid term. Abstraction is not on one end of a spectrum with tangibility on the other end. Either something is abstract (an idea) or it isn't, just like something is tangible (a physical object) or it isn't.

«[...] if all intelligent life in the universe suddenly disappeared, would (1+1=2) cease to be a true statement? [...] Or, in a universe without intelligent life, if there were 2 apples growing on one branch of an apple tree and 4 apples growing on the branch next to it, would there not still be twice as many apples growing on the latter branch?» I never denied that that the cardinality of sets is not dependent upon the presence of a sapient observer.

«If the universe suddenly destroyed itself, would (1+1=2) no longer be a valid statement?» Mathematics is a language we use to describe the universe. Without a universe to describe, mathematics become irrelevant because, like I've been telling you, the natural world we observe is the basis for mathematics. Remove the foundations and the building crumbles.