Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> LZ:
> > Colin Hales wrote:
> >> I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I
> can't help what I see... is there something wrong with this way of thinking?
> > I don't see what you think a non-ideal number is.
> This deficit of mine includes having trouble with ALL numbers. :-)
> For the life of me I cannot imagine what an 'object' is that has
> quintessential property of 'five' about it. Sitting in platonia somewhere
> is this object. Somewhere else in platonia sit the objects 'red' and 'sad'
> and 'big'. Here on the list we talk of integers and given them a label I
> and then speak of operations on I. We tend to think of I as 'being' an an
> integer..
> ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five in
> platonia as <5>. Here in reality what we are doing is creating a label I
> and interpreting the label as a pointer to storage where the value in the
> storage (call it [I])  is not an integer, but a symbolic representation of
> property of five_ness as mapped from platonia to reality. What we are
> doing is (very very metaphorically) shining a light (of an infinity of
> possible numbers) on the object <5> in platonia and letting the reflected
> light inhabit [I]. We behave as if <5> was in there, but it's not.
> All the rules of integers act as-if <5> was there.

None of them change if it isn't.

> At that moment the
> storage pointed to by I contains a symbolic rearrangment of matter such as
> binary 1001 implemented as the temporary state (an arrangement of charge
> in space) of logic gates. We logically interpret this artrangement of
> charge in space as having the effect of five_ness, which is property of we
> assign at the moment we use it (such as one more than 4).
> To me the actual numbers (things) don't exist at all. All I can really see
> here in reality is logical relations that behave as-if the platonic
> entities existed. This all may seem obvious to the rest of you. That's my
> problem! But to me here watching the industrial scale manipulations of
> symbols going on, I wonder why it is we think we are saying anything at
> all about reality - the computation that literally _is_ reality - which,
> again, I see as a pile of logical relations that sometimes lets the
> platonic light shine on them in useful ways - say in ways that enable a
> mathematical generalisation called an empirical law.

If empirical reality isn't necessarily mathematical, how can it be
necessarily computational.

> As to what the non-ideal numbers are....
> Well there aren't any.

But you said there were. That's why I asked.

> Not really. At least I can't conceive them. However
> the logical operations I see around us have the structure of numbers
> correponding to a rather odd plethora of bases. Quantity is implicit in
> any natural aggregation resulting from logical operations. One number
> might be:
> human.cell.molecule.atom.nucleus.proton.quark.fuzzy1.fuzzy2...fuzzyN
> (fred.dandruffskincell.omega3.carbon.nucleus.3rd_proton.UP_quark1_string.loop_2.etc1.etc2.....)
> If you work in base "atom" arithmetic you have and arithmetic where atoms
> associate with a remainder, say a unit in another base called .photon
> This is called chemistry.

Hmm. Well, we have a way of mathematising the world. It is called
physics, and it bases don't have much to do with it. Real numbers
symmetry, and smooth funciton do.

> The human (and all the space that expresses it) is one single number

Didn't you just say numbers odn't exist? Do you mean "representation
of a number", or something like that?

> consisting of 'digits' that are all the cells(and interstitial molecules)
> collected together according to affinities of fuzzyN, which acts in the
> above 'number' like the integer I does to the set of integers expressed in
> binary I mentioned above.
> There's no nice neat rows. No neat remainderless arithmetic.

How do you know?

> But it's all created with logical operators on an assumed elemental
> 'fuzzyN' (see above) primitive. '.fuzzyN' can be treated as an underlying
> structural primitive 'pseudo-object' as a fundamental 'thing'. But .fuzzyN
> can be just another logical relation between deeper primitives. There is
> no depth limit to it.

How do you know?

> As to computation - I have already described what we do here in maths and
> computation - all the same, really - all manipulating 'as-if' labeled
> entities. At the instant we lose sight of the logical/relational nature of
> what we are doing then we can delude ourselves that the symbols denote
> real 'objects' such as those in platonia and - especially - if you happen
> to 'be' a collection of these logical operations the rest of the logical
> operations going on around you look very lumpy and thingy indeed! It looks
> even more compellingly so when you it appears to obey empirical laws like
> quantum mechanics and the Nernst equation when perception - made of the
> same logical operations - presents you with a representation of it all
> using that special logical aggregate called a brain.
> In terms of the thread subject line, then, a chair is literally
> mathematics going on. There's an infinity of other mathematics that can
> symbolically fiddle with entities in an arithmetical base
> linguistic_token_for_chair or perhaps linguistic_token_la_chaise, but in
> coming into existence in the minds of humans we instantly lose the native
> maths of which the chair is an expression - a computation - an unfolding
> neverending proof - a theorem pushed along by the drive of the master
> mathematician - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (= natural propensities for
> .fuzzyN entities to associate recursively - see above).
> I think I might make sense here but as usual I remain skeptical of myself.
> cheers
> Colin Hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to