complexitystudies wrote: > 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 mathematician? 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 > >problem. > > 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, > Günther --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
