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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to