Georges, your post is "on the level", I am not <G> I am still in common sense with my feeble thinking-tool.
Which leaves me with a question - please see inserted. (I erase the rest of the lengthu discussion) John M --- Georges Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John M a écrit : > > > > Bruno wrote: > > > > "What can be said about numbers is that it is > > impossible to explain what numbers are to someone > who > > does not already knows what they are..." > > > > <I will talk about "what numbers do, not 'are'> > > > > *SKIP > > As I said above: "what numbers do". > > Well, what DO numbers do? -- -THEY DO NOTHING. - > - > > - This is my fundamental objection to the 'hard' > > number theory making numbers (and their > manipulations) > > the basis of them all (I don't dare: nature, > world, > > existence, etc. as very loaded words over here). > > Numbers do NOT add, subtract, etc., WE do it to > (by, > > with) them. Humans, Loebian machines, whatever, > but > > NOT the numbers. SKIP > > > > If there 'are' only numbers - it stays only > numbers. > > That may be a neat world, but without us thinking > > about it. Do I miss the numberculus (I don't say: > > himunculus) > > DOING the operations. > > Who said that numbers do (or have to do or could do) > anything? > I am not sure Bruno did and I did not. I only > suggested that > natural numbers might have to exist and their > existence might > be enough to explain the existence of everything > else. This is very different. So the numbers are only 'there' to explain the existence of everything else. What else must be there to provide such existence - which then you want to assign to the numbers? What I really asked: WHAT is the operator? without one the numbers just 'sit there as numbers. Numbers do not "decide" to add up or else themselves into complex constructs (including 'ourselves') Do they? > SKIP I feel that gap here: > Finally, it might be that one of the (possibly very) > complex > objects in this world of numbers just happens to > host us and > all that we see. > > > But do we need to actually believe in any of these > speculations? I feel we have a discussion here. Do we just speculate to entertain ourselves with unbelieved ideas, or some of us take it seriously to speak about 'real' ideas? > > Georges. John > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---