Georges, your post is "on the level", I am not <G> 
I am still in common sense with my feeble

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. 
> > 
> > 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?
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.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to