Georges Quénot wrote:
> >
> > Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
> > mathematical,
> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
> adopt it either.
> But can you make a difference between adopting it and
> being able to consider that it might make sense (whether
> it is true or not) and conduct (or follow) reflections
> in a context in which it would be conjectured as true?

I don't think Mathematical Monism makes sense (to be precise it
is either incoherent, in asserting that only some mathematical
objects exist, or inconsistent with observation in asserting that
they all do)..

> > [...] Maps are isomorphic to
> > territories, but are not territories.
> Well. Territories *are* maps. Just a very specific type
> of map but maps anyway. they are not. You can't grow potatoes in a map of a farm.

> Identity is just an isomorphism
> among possibly many others.

All identity relations are isomorphisms as well.
Not all isomporhisms are identity relations.

> The territory can be the map
> and indeed vice versa.

You can't fold up the farm and put it in your pocket.

> 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