Stephen: right on! (onwards, of course). I did not mention the arts. Express "art" by numbers and you killed the art. Maybe I misunderstand the idea, but a representation by (any kind and length of) numbers is (in my mind at least) rational. Art is not.
Emotions (some of them) are not necessarily either. I feel in the 'numbers represented world' some sort of uniformity-trend which does not cope with the infinite 'tastes' of the qualia we may imagine into the world. The unrestricted variety cannot be formulated into just certain rules. How can 'numbers' comply with 'non-numbers' related connotations? Can 'numbers' express the 'non-number' ideas? Similar questions were raised already here - I do not recall explanations to my satisfaction. Maybe MY fault. John M --- Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > 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"? > > Onward! > > > Stephen > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE > > > > Quentin: > > I don't know from your wink at the end whether you > are half-serious or > not. > 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. > > Tom > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---