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: