Abram, I could agree with the statement that there are uncountably many *potential* numbers but I'm going to argue that any number that actually exists is eminently describable.
Take the set of all numbers that are defined far enough after the decimal point that they never accurately describe anything manifest in the physical universe and are never described or invoked by any entity in the physical universe (specifically including a method for the generation of that number). Pi is clearly not in the set since a) it describes all sorts of ratios in the physical universe and b) there is a clear formula for generating successive approximations of it. My question is -- do these numbers really exist? And, if so, by what definition of exist since my definition is meant to rule out any form of manifestation whether physical or as a concept. Clearly these numbers have the potential to exist -- but it should be equally clear that they do not actually "exist" (i.e. they are never individuated out of the class). Any number which truly exists has at least one description either of the type of a) the number which is manifest as or b) the number which is generated by. Classicists seem to want to insist that all of these potential numbers actually do exist -- so they can make statements like "There are uncountably many real numbers that no one can ever describe in any manner." I ask of them (and you) -- Show me just one. :-) ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
