Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads

use numbers. > >> >> >> Roger Clough,rclo...@verizon.net 10/1/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Stephen P. King >> Receiver:

Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads

numbers. Monads use numbers. Roger Clough,rclo...@verizon.net 10/1/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-30, 14:22:03 Subject: Re: Numbers

Re: Numbers vs monads

Hi Roger Clough, ### ROGER: Quanta are different from particles. They don't move from A to B along particular paths through space (or even through space), they move through all possible mathematical paths - which is to say that they are everywhere at once- until one particular path is sele

Re: Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads

time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-30, 14:22:03 Subject: Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads On 9/30/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wr

Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants of monads

On 9/30/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue, so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads. Previously I noted that numbers could not be monads

Re: Re: Re: Numbers in Space

. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/22/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 12:58:41 Subject: Re: Re: Numbers in Space On Friday,

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" > wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jaso

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if

Re: Numbers in Space

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" > wrote: > > On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 9/20/2012

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Craig Weinberg > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-09-21, 11:27:56 > *Subject:* Re: Numbers in Space > > > > On Friday, September 21, 2012

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" > wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jas

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:24, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

, 11:27:56 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: > H

Re: Numbers in Space

On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > Here's another reductio ad a

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally > normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. > > Craig > > To understand a thing i

Re: Numbers in Space

On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: Here's another reductio ad ab

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behav

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But the numbers build an "arithmetic body" The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body. and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they can "implement" the UD. No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists l

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. >

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote: Here's anot

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

09-20, 21:28:02 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the ve

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

- Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 20:50:22 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > If the version of c

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

09-21, 01:19:04 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of co

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't i

Re: Numbers in Space

On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > If the version of comp we are discussing here is indepen

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The pr

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. >> >> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig To understand a thing is to control a thing. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outla

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > If the version of comp we are discussing here is

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. >> >> If the version of comp we are di

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > > > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of > > physics, then shouldn't it be p

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines u

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it b

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, s

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > > > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of > > physics, then shouldn't i

Re: Numbers in Space

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quic

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. >> >> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, >> then shouldn't

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. > > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, > then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using > only empty space? Length can

Re: numbers?

On 07 Aug 2010, at 00:05, Brian Tenneson wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark argues that reality is a mathematical structure and states that an open problem is finding a mathematical structure which is isomorphic to reality. This might or might not be clear: the mathematical structure wi

Re: numbers?

Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark argues that reality is a mathematical structure and states that an open problem is finding a mathematical structure which is isomorphic to reality. This might or might not be clear: the mathematical structure with the property that all mathematical structures can be

Re: numbers?

John Mikes wrote: "...Rectangles are not found in nature and not are numbers; both are abstractions of things we see in nature..." Pray: what things? and how are they 'abstracted into numbers? (Rectangles etc. - IMO - are artifacts made (upon/within) a system of human application). "Yet num

Re: numbers?

On 05 Aug 2010, at 01:18, Brian Tenneson wrote: Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal mathematical structure, but he failed. It was an interesting failure as he discovered the notion of topos, (discovered also independently by Groethendieck) which is more a mathe

Re: numbers?

I am not sure whether I reply to Brian, or to Bruno? there are remarks on *my texts to Brian* without marking the replier and at the end it reads: * "Bruno"* with no further ado. Never mind, I want to be short. "...Rectangles are not found in nature and not are numbers; both are abstractions of th

Re: numbers?

John Mikes wrote: Brian, nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the

Re: numbers?

Quentin: excellent. Your Voltairian acridity showed perfectly how bad my argument was. A typical gotcha. Now aout existence: that (noun!) concept is the target of my frequent question, I used the topic as: "to" exist, a verb, in the widest sense. What may lead to desperate argumentation about the m

Re: numbers?

On 02 Aug 2010, at 00:30, Brian Tenneson wrote: As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is "accounted for" by a mathematical structure.. Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal mathematical stru

Re: numbers?

2010/8/2 John Mikes > Brian, > nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's > application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the > stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano > axioms and found nothing in them that pertains

Re: numbers?

Brian, nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the origination of numbers.

Re: numbers?

On 8/2/2010 11:14 AM, Mark Buda wrote: Brent Meeker writes: On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only problem is if numbers were a human invention... other humans could come with a prime number that is even and not 2... There would exists a biggest number, 1+1=2

Re: numbers?

Brent Meeker writes: > On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > The only problem is if numbers were a human invention... other > humans could come with a prime number that is even and not > 2... There would exists a biggest number, 1+1=2 could be false > somewhere sometime

Re: numbers?

2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/2/2010 1:39 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > ... > > Meaning of words can change and do change. Meaning of english words are > dependant of humans. Meaning of mathematical thruths aren't. > > > Mathematical truths don't have meaning. > Well I must be too dumb or h

Re: numbers?

On 8/2/2010 1:39 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ... Meaning of words can change and do change. Meaning of english words are dependant of humans. Meaning of mathematical thruths aren't. Mathematical truths don't have meaning. Mathematical truth are independent of humans, life and th

Re: numbers?

Hi John, On 01 Aug 2010, at 00:05, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and David: there are concepts in your extremely interesting and informative discussion - 'beyond me': First the "real existence" (beyond Bruno's 1st person sharable experience by machines). I call 'existence' everything that eme

Re: numbers?

2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/2/2010 12:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > >> On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker >> >>> On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: >>> >>> I quite agree that counting and the existence of num

Re: numbers?

On 8/2/2010 12:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: I quite agree that co

Re: numbers?

2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > >> On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: >> >> I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different. >> >> The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not

Re: numbers?

On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different. The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are

Re: numbers?

2010/8/2 Brent Meeker > On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > > I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different. > > The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not dependent > on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite sets by assum

Re: numbers?

On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different. The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not dependent on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite sets by assuming an induction property held b

Re: numbers?

As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is "accounted for" by a mathematical structure.. It's a project I've been working on which assumes that the reality hypothesis implies the mathematical universe hypothesis. Bruno Mar

Re: numbers?

I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different. The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not dependent on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite sets by assuming an induction property held by (sets of) numbers. So while counting may

Re: numbers?

Bruno and David: there are concepts in your extremely interesting and informative discussion - 'beyond me': First the "real existence" (beyond Bruno's 1st person sharable experience by machines). I call 'existence' everything that emerges in (any) 'mind' without calling it *real*, or *unreal*. Wh

Re: numbers?

On 31 Jul 2010, at 00:49, David Nyman wrote: On 30 July 2010 17:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... and if you believe that the universe can be accounted for by a some consistent mathematical structure. Which is an open problem. Assuming mechanism, physical universes have no real existence at all

Re: numbers?

On 30 July 2010 17:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ... and if you believe that the universe can be accounted for by a some > consistent mathematical structure. Which is an open problem. Assuming > mechanism, physical universes have no real existence at all, except as first > person sharable experience

Re: numbers?

On 30 Jul 2010, at 17:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda wrote: Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any idea exists - they

Re: numbers?

Jason Resch writes: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda wrote: > > ... I do understand that the existence of the physical universe leads > to minds, and the minds lea

Re: numbers?

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda wrote: > >> >> Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any >> idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist th

Re: numbers?

Jason Resch writes: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda wrote: > > > Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any > idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe > logical propositions about them. They exist because minds beli

Re: numbers?

On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda > wrote: Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe logical propositions ab

Re: numbers?

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda wrote: > > Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any > idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe > logical propositions about them. They exist because minds believe > logical propositions about them

Re: numbers?

Brent Meeker writes: > On 7/29/2010 4:03 PM, Mark Buda wrote: > > Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the > existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the > ideas we call "number" and "existence". > > > What logical proposition

Re: numbers?

On 7/29/2010 4:03 PM, Mark Buda wrote: Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the ideas we call "number" and "existence". What logical proposition would that be? A proposition like "Every nu

Re: numbers?

Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the ideas we call "number" and "existence". And if you bring a definition of number in terms of other ideas such as "successor", then you are simply restati

Re: numbers?

On 7/29/2010 3:28 PM, Mark Buda wrote: Quantum mechanics suggests maybe not. If there were no conscious observers to collapse the wave function of the universe after the big bang, then what, pray tell, would constitute an atom that might be counted? This assumes that conscious observers are n

Re: numbers?

Quantum mechanics suggests maybe not. If there were no conscious observers to collapse the wave function of the universe after the big bang, then what, pray tell, would constitute an atom that might be counted? This assumes that conscious observers are necessary to collapse the wave function, o

Re: numbers?

Numbers existed before people on this rock began to understand them. If not number of atoms in the universe, then the number of cells in organisms one day prior to 10,000 years ago. or anything really, that had the potential to be counted, one day prior to 10,000 years ago. If all numbers are inv

Re: numbers?

Bruno wrote: * ( - "...are true independently of you, matter, universe, bibles, etc. *- ) * No theorem of math, even of intuitionist math makes any sense, without such belief*..." * *WHO'S BELIEF?* or rather: *WHAT"S BELIEF*? does a snail believe that 2+13=15, or a rock? I bet for the an

Re: numbers?

On 26 Jul 2010, at 18:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/26/2010 6:24 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular numbers are inventions? If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me, counterintuitive. Numbers existed b

Re: numbers?

On 7/26/2010 6:24 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular numbers are inventions? If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me, counterintuitive. Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understo

Re: numbers?

Brian: it is not so simple. Not that some chap sat down 10,000 years ago and said "I just invented the numbers" let's say: from 1 to 1 zillion, - the process is a long development parallel with brain, bodily and life-style evolution. The date - I think - refers to "numbering" amounts with a gradual

Re: numbers?

Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular numbers are inventions? If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me, counterintuitive. Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understood by humans to some extent. There was a spe

Re: numbers?

Dear John, On 21 Jul 2010, at 22:03, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, on diverse lists I bounce into the 'numbers' idea - in different variations. I wonder if your position states that the world (whatever) has been 'erected' (wrong word) based on integer numbers and their additive multiplic

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

dan9el wrote: > > Tom Caylor wrote: >> Brent Meeker wrote: >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: >> This cannot be explained away by "faith" in the sense that >> one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god >> (because no empirical finding counts for o

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > Brent Meeker writes: > > > > > >>> This cannot be explained away by > > >>> "faith" in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a > > >>> deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Le 11-nov.-06, à 19:07, 1Z a écrit : > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : >> >>> No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 >>> is not a prime number. >> >> This is for me a typical "arithmetical realist" statement. > > Most philosophers who use

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : > > > No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 > > is not a prime number. > > This is for me a typical "arithmetical realist" statement. Most philosophers who use the "possible worlds" terminology do nothing PW's a

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : > No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 > is not a prime number. This is for me a typical "arithmetical realist" statement. > Causality , as opposed > to material implication, requires contingency. Yes. And grosso modo there will

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor writes: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any > > evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based > > on *selected* evidence; it is "faith" because it is contrary to the total > > evidence. B

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Amen John - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:48 AM Subject: RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Brent Meeker writes: . > > > Seems like "faith" to me - belief without or contr

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > 1Z wrote: > > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>> Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : > > >>> > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > >> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > 1Z wrote: > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > >> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > > > > >> > > > > >>> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL > > > > >> > > > > >> I hav

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Peter Jones writes: > > >> Most people would not say "yes doctor" to a process that recorded > > >> their > > >> brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you > > >> can > > >> get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs > > >> process). > > > > > > Why? P

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > > > >> > > > >>> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL > > > >> > > > >> I have not the slightest idea what y

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > 1Z wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : > >>> > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > > > >> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL > > I have not the slightest i

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: > 1Z wrote: >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > >> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL > I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you d

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker writes: > > > >>> This cannot be explained away by > >>> "faith" in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a > >>> deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such > >>> beliefs): rather, it co

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL > > >> > > >> I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. > > > > > > If you don

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Brent Meeker writes: > >>> This cannot be explained away by >>> "faith" in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a >>> deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such >>> beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneo

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >