On 10/22/06, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/22/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As someone who thinks that numbers have a reality, 2 and 4 would both
> be metaphors for the actual numbers. (or is that too spacy?)
What is the reality of "2" or "4" if it is not 2 or 4 OF something?
Yes. I'm told that the original numbering systems were developed by
people with herds of sheep and the like. It made sense to count them,
whereas it seldom made sense to count the number of grains of wheat.
The basic idea is that (as Martin Gardner once said), mathematics
represents the abstract aspect of empirical reality. To me, this means
abstracting from the inherent heterogeneity of that reality: if you
count your sheep, you ignore the differences among the sheep. (You
also ignore the idea that they represent merely parts of the greater
whole of sheepdom, and of the Animal Kingdom, and of Nature.)
--
Jim Devine / " Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I
mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on
something like that?" – Barbara Bush
