Yes, I was assuming that the descriptions "lose information", or generalize, just as "mammal" is a generalization, and just as Bruno's duplication loses information.  Otherwise, I would call it a re-representation of *ALL* the details of something, *as seen from a certain perspective*, into another form.  I don't think this is possible with physical things in our universe.  This is what I was trying to get at.
If we are limiting our discussion to numbers to begin with, then we would have to assume at the outset that the universe is totally representable (not just describable) by numbers in order for the discussion to have any bearing on the final true nature of the universe.  I don't assume that.
So on a side note:  Even if we are talking about just numbers, I don't think that multiplication is all that Platonic of a thing, hence I have a similar idea about the prime factorization of integers.  I think that the closest thing to a Platonic representation of 4 is "IIII" rather than "2^2".  Math requires a person.  I don't think it's possible to prove it otherwise. ;)
In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:38:40 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  • [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
    "Another note about numbering.  It seems to be that if you repeatedly make descriptions of descriptions, you eventually end up with all 0's or all 1's, showing that numbers describing numbers is meaningless.   Does this also prove that numbers do not have a Platonic existence?"
I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying that descriptions of descriptions must lose accuracy?  If so, why must it?

Suppose that something is described by a tape run on a computer - a universal Turing machine.  It seems to me that a "true description" of that tape could only be an identical copy.  How could a true description of that tape degenerate into a string of all 0's or all

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