How many grains make a heap?

If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

Larry Walker24 said:If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

My take? A pile is just an unorganized mess.
That’s the thing. It isn't enough to just have a bunch of stuff; that collection has to be disorganized to earn the title of a "pile."

Take the set of all natural numbers, for example. That’s a perfectly ordered sequence with infinite members. And because it’s so orderly, you can't exactly call it a "pile" of natural numbers. It's too structured for that.

People usually credit Eubulides from Miletus with this paradox, much like his famous riddle about the bald man: if having one single hair makes you bald, and two hairs still leaves you bald, but ten thousand hairs clearly means you aren't, where exactly do we draw the line? The Greeks used to call these kinds of brain teasers "elenchi," which was basically just a way to trip someone up until they ended up contradicting their own initial argument. This whole cluster of riddles eventually became known as the Sorites paradox, stemming from the Greek word for a heap. At its core, we're looking at an indeterminate limit in how we apply predicates—though this concept isn't just limited to predicates, which is why analytical philosophy eventually expanded it into the broader idea of "vagueness." If you want to look at it through a more speculative lens, it’s an aporia that traps the faculty of understanding—which is what formal logic represents—into a corner, and the only real way out is through dialectics. Hegel actually points to this specific paradox as a prime example of how change often starts as a simple quantitative shift before suddenly flipping into a qualitative one—that classic transition from quantity to quality. Or, to put it in terms we might actually use today, a heap is essentially an instance of emergence.

Larry Walker24 said:If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

It would seem, then, that a heap consists entirely of nothing but grains...🙄

That’s plenty. 🤔 At least, that's how I see it.

I mean, just think about it—how many ants does it take to call it an anthill? How many birds make a flock, or how many swallows constitute a migration pattern? It’s all so abstract, isn't it?😁

But honestly, why are we even overthinking this? Let's just head over to the local diner and enjoy ourselves instead.😁

17,4

silvergardener152 said:That’s plenty. 🤔 At least, that's how I see it.

I mean, just think about it—how many ants does it take to call it an anthill? How many birds make a flock, or how many swallows constitute a migration pattern? It’s all so abstract, isn't it?😁

But honestly, why are we even overthinking this? Let's just head over to the local diner and enjoy ourselves instead.😁

Is everyone just piling in at once, then? Or am I just seeing things? 🤣

Larry Moore83 said:Is everyone just piling in at once, then? Or am I just seeing things? 🤣

So, we're talking about piles now. My mind immediately drifted toward some chaotic backyard bonfire or maybe a wild, messy festival out in the Midwest where the music is nothing but bizarre, loud country-pop playing on loop. 😁
And honestly, I can't help but picture a spinning carnival ride right in the middle of the madness. 🤣 🤣

As for the actual answer to how many grains make up a pile—well, a pile of grains is logically just... 😁

silvergardener152 said:So, we're talking about piles now. My mind immediately drifted toward some chaotic backyard bonfire or maybe a wild, messy festival out in the Midwest where the music is nothing but bizarre, loud country-pop playing on loop. 😁
And honestly, I can't help but picture a spinning carnival ride right in the middle of the madness. 🤣 🤣

As for the actual answer to how many grains make up a pile—well, a pile of grains is logically just... 😁

But wait, let me correct myself—forgive me, my friend—when we discuss a heap, we are strictly talking about things that consist of individual grains. We aren't talking about a pile of dirty laundry, or trash, or even fertilizer... we mean grains! Whether it’s gunpowder, grapes, or sand... it really doesn't matter. 🧐

On top of that, there is a very clear distinction between a "heap" and a "pile"—though, if you think about it, a pile is essentially just what you call it when it fails to be a true heap. ☕

🤣

Here is some grain. Happy little grains.

In computer science, you can have zero grains. You might have a pile where you add or subtract grains. But even if that pile is empty, it still counts as a pile 😬

40 🙂

Matthew Chavez said:40 🙂

Do you happen to have two witnesses to back that up, too? 😁

tons of grain

Zachary Mendoza2 said:In computer science, you can have zero grains. You might have a pile where you add or subtract grains. But even if that pile is empty, it still counts as a pile 😬

That logic holds up fine if you’re treating a "heap" as a pure abstraction—just a concept floating in the ether. But why call it an abstraction? Because our actual experience tells us that a heap is inherently tied to the quantity of what's inside it. In the real world, you can't really have quality without quantity, much like how you can't have form without substance, or substance without form. It's like saying matter only shows itself through its properties, or that essence only exists when it actually manifests in something real... you get the idea.

What a ridiculous question; obviously, 1991 grains make a mountain. Just ask any American and you'll get your answer

Amanda Jackson5 said:That logic holds up fine if you’re treating a "heap" as a pure abstraction—just a concept floating in the ether. But why call it an abstraction? Because our actual experience tells us that a heap is inherently tied to the quantity of what's inside it. In the real world, you can't really have quality without quantity, much like how you can't have form without substance, or substance without form. It's like saying matter only shows itself through its properties, or that essence only exists when it actually manifests in something real... you get the idea.

Fair, but I suspect the computer science pioneers weren't thinking about philosophy. They were thinking practically. It feels almost like they were playing with words when they coined the term; it mirrors how you move things from a haystack to a pile and back again.

In a practical sense, imagine where your haystack will be. Then a truck arrives with hay and asks where to unload. You point to a spot and say, "right here, in the pile." They dump the hay onto that empty space, and suddenly you have a full pile. You’ve got your pitchfork ready by the haystack, which is also currently empty, and then you use the pitchfork to move the hay from the pile to the stack.🤷

Now we’re getting into philosophical territory. A heap is whatever you decide constitutes a heap. A dozen is twelve of something—precise. Five is just the number of fingers on your hand. But a heap? That’s mostly an indeterminate amount of something—just enough to be more than what you can easily count.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Or, to put it in modern terms—a heap is an emergence.

🤦

@Amanda Jackson5: Honestly, I was reading that thread regarding emergence, and I find myself agreeing with placidranger. Either your presentation was flawed, or you are defending the wrong thesis. It is possible I missed something and simply do not understand, but I assign the same level of probability to my confusion as I do to you experiencing the same issue.
Based on the arguments presented both there and here, I see no evidence of emergence. Fundamentally, a "heap" is nothing more than a "grain"; it is merely a label we apply. It is not as if a collection of grains spontaneously creates something entirely new called a "heap." Rather, you arrive, you cannot determine the exact number of grains, so you call it a "heap." It is trivial. They are just grains. I see no emergence occurring at all.

placidranger said:Now we’re getting into philosophical territory. A heap is whatever you decide constitutes a heap. A dozen is twelve of something—precise. Five is just the number of fingers on your hand. But a heap? That’s mostly an indeterminate amount of something—just enough to be more than what you can easily count.

🤦

The actual question was: how many grains make a heap? Or, where exactly does the line fall between a heap and a non-heap? For a more technical breakdown, check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Like I mentioned back in post #3, we’re dealing with the indeterminate limit of predicate application (which you pointed out yourself), and this concept actually extends beyond simple predicates; it eventually evolved in analytical philosophy into the idea of "vagueness". So, the heap itself isn't really the point; it’s just a convenient little exercise for testing logic, demonstrating that when formal logic hits a wall, you inevitably have to bring in dialectical reasoning or "fuzzy" logic to make sense of things.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:@Amanda Jackson5: Honestly, I was reading that thread regarding emergence, and I find myself agreeing with placidranger. Either your presentation was flawed, or you are defending the wrong thesis. It is possible I missed something and simply do not understand, but I assign the same level of probability to my confusion as I do to you experiencing the same issue.
Based on the arguments presented both there and here, I see no evidence of emergence. Fundamentally, a "heap" is nothing more than a "grain"; it is merely a label we apply. It is not as if a collection of grains spontaneously creates something entirely new called a "heap." Rather, you arrive, you cannot determine the exact number of grains, so you call it a "heap." It is trivial. They are just grains. I see no emergence occurring at all.

I might have glossed over some details in my previous explanation, but now I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that emergence is somehow nonexistent or just an illusion? If you think quality is an illusion, then emergence is an illusion too. In fact, quantity would be an illusion as well, since they're just mutually defining binary oppositions. A heap isn't the same thing as a grain, because a heap possesses a different quality than a single grain. If the quality of the heap differs from that of the grain because its properties have changed, then that is precisely what emergence is.