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
rerepresentation 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. ;)
Tom
In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:38:40 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Re: Numbers Daddycaylor
 Re: Numbers Bruno Marchal
 Re: Numbers Georges Quénot
 Re: Numbers peterdjones
 Re: Numbers Brent Meeker
 Re: Numbers peterdjones
 Re: Numbers Georges Quénot
 Re: Numbers peterdjones
 Re: Numbers Georges Quénot
 Re: Numbers Bruno Marchal
 Re: Numbers Georges Quénot