> Hi Bruno,
> > Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just assume).
> A bold assumption, if I may say so.
> > To be clear on that hypothesis, I do indeed find plausible that the
> > number six is perfect, even in the case the "branes would not have
> > collide, no big bang, no physical universe".
> > Six is perfect just because its divisors are 1, 2, and 3; and that
> > 1+2+3 = 6. Not because I know that. I blieve the contrary: it is the
> > independent truth of "6 = sum of its proper divisors" than eventually
> > I, and you, can learn it.
> I understand your argumentation well, because maybe one or two years
> ago I said nearly the same sentences to colleagues.
> But my exploration into cognitive neuroscience has exposed to me
> how mathematical thinking comes about, and that it is indeed not
> separable from our human brains.
> > If you want, numbers are what makes any counting possible.
> Numbers are symbols we create in our minds to communicate with
> fellow individuals about things of importance to us.
> To paraphrase Descartes very liberally:
> We group, therefore we can count.
> Our act of arbitrary grouping (made a bit less arbitrary by
> evolution, which makes us group things which are good to
> our survival, like gazelles and spears or berries) let's us
> count and communicate the number.
> For the universe "one apple" may not exist, because in effect
> there are only quarks interacting. And at this level indeterminacy
> strikes mercilessly, making it all but meaningless to count quarks.
> Also, concepts like infinity are most definitely not universal
> concepts "out there", but products of our mind.
This sounds very much like my view of math.
> > It is not because some country put salt on pancakes that pancakes do
> > not exist there. Roman where writing 8 -3 for us 8 - 2. It is like
> > saying 3*7 = 25 on planet TETRA. They mean 3*7 = 21, they just put it
> > differently.
> Of course, symbolisms are arbitrary, but physical instantiation makes
> all the difference.
> > No problem. I see you assume a physical universe. I don't. We havejust
> > different theories.
> So, which experiment decides which is true? I think "platonism" derives
> it's power from misconceptions of the human mind.
> The unthinking stone would never construe such a thing as platonism.
> It would just exist - in a very real world ;-)
> >Note that if you understand the whole UDA,
> Unfortunately, not yet, but I'm reading!
The UDA is not precise enough for me, maybe because I'm a
I'm waiting for the interview, via the roadmap.
> > you should realize that the
> >price of assuming a physical universe (and wanting it to be related
> >with our experiences *and* our experiments) is to postulate that you
> >(and us, if you are not solipsistic) are not turing emulable. No
> Why is that so? Could you clarify this issue?
> >(I like to separate issues concerning the choice of theory, and issues
> >concerning propositions made *in* a theory, or accepting that theory).
> Absolutely. But I think we have to start with our assumptions and
> try to scrutinize them very carefully. After all, we want to devote
> our minds to problems arising out of them during our lives, and
> thus the initial choice should not be made rashly, but only after
> careful review of our current body of knowledge.
> Best Regards,
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