Your post has inspired a thought for me that I have been struggling for years to generate! Where is Intensionality instantiated in Arithmetic Realism, or any form of Platonism? To re-phrase in folk-speak: How is "to whom-ness" present in a number?
I find in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension the idea that "refers to the set of all possible things which a word could describe.", thus intensionality for a number would be the set (???) of all possible other numbers that it could encode, which has a nice algorithmic flavor; but let's go to extensionality: "extension (or denotation) refers to the set of all actual things which the word actually describes".
How do numbers *distinguish* (if I am permitted to use that word) between *possibility* and *actuality*? Is the "bush" what Bruno is "beating around"?
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
I don't know from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or
But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can on this), I think
I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction between mathematical and
linguistic paradox. The meaning of the symbols is defined at a higher
level than the encoding itself. Your statement turns on the word
"chosen", which is a verb. This goes back to my other post in this
thread that, in order to keep from going into an infinite regress of
meaninglessness, defining meaning ultimately requires a person.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list