Bruno,
George wrote an admirably wise note and you picked
positively on the roadmap with the fruitful mind
of a logician.
It looks like you both start out from "not agreeing
because of non-understanding math sufficiently" - which may be true, but not
necessarily the "real" root.
I think many of us have the wrong information about
'math' in question. You called "numbers" the series of '1,2,3...many' and "we"
think 'math' is a manipulation of such, even if many substitute and functional
symbols are used.
My question (and I asked it several times here and
on diverse other lists and got no satisfactory answer) - still
prevails:
What are (in the new meaning) NUMBERS -
how can we handle the non-number concepts by
numbers - (whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new' meaning of "math"
and how can non-math concepts be handled by math?
Norman touched it, 1Z goes around it, David Bohm
even went that far as to state: numbers (and so math) are human inventions,
probably based on Plato, who made the biggest (philosophical) argument - as the
product of HIS mind.
Words are loaded with different meanings and people tend to use their favorite - mostly from the mother tongue. I admire George's open mind accepting the diverse positions and I am also no missionary who wants to convert people, but even if I think differently, I like to follow the mental ways of others. It may add usefully to my own thinking. So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the
arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is not
a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in 'more-sided'
opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the math - physics
base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)
Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon
- ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical
application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics.
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy
with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which is
hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving to
myself some (Levy-type) sanity.
So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers?
How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? How should I 'materialize'
(physically?) the beauty of a sunset?
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?
Eager to learn
John Mikes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |

- Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalizat... John M