On Nov 29, 7:25 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 28 Nov 2010, at 21:18, Pzomby wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 10:49 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen > >>> <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The same goes for more abstract substrates, like bits of information. > >> Rex > > > Assuming that by using the term ‘abstract’ it means ‘non-physical’, > > But abstract does not mean non physical. "F = ma" is physical yet > abstract. It is a true (say) abstract relation that we infer from many > observation, and which can be instantiated in some concrete > relationship between bodies, for example. > Would not the context of this discussion, referring to ‘abstract substrates’, as opposed to physical substrates (quarks and electrons) indicate that ‘abstract’ (in this case) is not of the physical? Some of the contents of human consciousness are non physical (not of the five senses). ‘Curiosity’ for example is a non physical trait. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/abstractnoun.htm > > is > > it possible for information or anything to be ‘more’ or even ‘less’ > > abstract. Are not the physical and abstract realms pure unto > > themselves with no possibility of being more or less abstract or > > physical? In other words ‘abstract substrates” could be > > incongruous. > > This is theory dependent. Natural numbers are usually considered by > number theorists as being very concrete (yet immaterial) objects. > Relations between numbers are more abstract, and relations between > those relations are still more abstract. In math, algebra is > considered as more abstract than arithmetic. category theory is known > as very abstract. Lambda calculus contains a "concrete" abstraction > operator (indeed "lambda") capable of constructing more and more > abstract objects. It replace concrete/token immaterial object like > numbers (or strings) by variable one. > > Bruno
Yes, ‘theory dependent’ human constructs. No doubt number theorists have agreed upon terminology and understandings that describe the functions and results. Are what they are really referring to, is that which is ‘finite’ (having natural boundaries or limitations) rather than concrete? Are not category theory, algebra, etc. representing things that have ‘finite’ rather than ‘concrete’ properties? If a mathematician or scientist presumes the brain is the mind as in physicalism, materialism etc., he of course, will have little choice but to describe everything (including human consciousness) as concrete. > > Any clarification or examples on this issue would be helpful. > > Thanks > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
