[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Georges Quénot wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Georges Quénot wrote: >>>> 1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of >>>> equations of which a "Harry Potter universe" including >>>> a counterpart of you would be a solution. >>> 1) Any configuration of material bodies can be represented as a some >>> very long number >> Unlike some others I did not introduce representations. >> >> One cannot represent "any configuration of material bodies" >> by a number with an infinite precision however long the number. >> As some mentioned also, you would need a (de)coding scheme. > > If numbers don't represent material, then somehow they mus *be* > material bodies.
In a mathematical-monist view, yes. But everything is in the "somehow" (maybe also in what you mean by "numbers"). You should not think of a greedy correspondence. > And if they can't do either, Mathematical Monism fails. And if > they can, you have the Harry Potter problem. What it might mean that "they can (or can't)" could be more subtle than you imagine. From *my* viewpoint there is no problem in either case. > Unless only one > mathemical object is instantiated. But that isn't monism. Indeed. And monism is not that all are instantiated (that would just be a different dualism), it is that instanciation is meaningless. Georges. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---