Zero functioning engines will not.
Yeah, pretty easy to count.
Etc…
Reality is much more squishy than you might think.
If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models.
It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky.
For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc...
The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases.
There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...
I could go on and on.
You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0].
Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose.
> For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database
This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against?
> I could go on and on.
Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make.
Similarly, according to QM, the number of fundamental particles in any system is not well-defined. They’re constantly appearing and disappearing.
How do you count “people”? Easily and consistently? What about conjoined twins? Still doable? What if the twins are highly asymmetric with one twin just a bump on the head of the other? Just a few cells? Shared brain but seperate bodies? Still easy to “count”?