peterdjones wrote:
> Georges Quenot wrote:
>> [...]
>> The question of whether there could be other type of objects
>> than mathematical is a different one. I can figure what could
>> mathematical objects and that they can exist (though I am
>> afraid I cannot easily transmit that feeling). It is harder
>> for me to imagine what non mathematical objects could be and
>> how/why they happened to come to existence.
> My candidates for non-mathematical properties are
> 1) existence/materiality itself (that is, physical existence in a
> partiuclar place at a partiouclar time)
> 2) time (causality, laws)
> 3) consciousness, specifically qualia.

These might be "non mathematical" properties but, at leat
from my point of view, they do not need to be non mathematical.
You probably think that they must be non mathematical because
you are not able to figure exactly *how* they could be "just
mathematical". Two centuries ago, people weren't able to figure
out *how* complex living beings could have emerged from simple
and inert matter and they thought too that this was impossible
and that they had to choose another default "explanation".

>> Did some God pull
>> them out of nothingness?
> Why would a God be needed to create non-mathematical objects
> but not mathematical ones ? Is that a feeling, too ?

Yes. For me, this is a feeling. "Constraints" that apply to
"competent matehematicians" do not a need a God to exist (and
no God, however powerful, could not escape or change them).


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