peterdjones wrote:
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> 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".
> Two centuries ago people thought they could build perpetual motion
> machines and square the circle. There is no guarantee that things
> we cannot figure out now will be figured out in the future.

There is no guarantee either that they won't. While we
don't know, they remain conjectures and lots of progress
usually come out from their study whatever the outcome.


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