# Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

Le 10-oct.-06, à 22:41, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

>
> Bruno:
> you wrote:
> "...I do believe that 5 is equal to 1+1+1+1+1, ..."
>
> Why not 1+1+1+1+1+1+1?

Because it is equal to six.

> you had a notion somewhere in your mathemaitcally
> instructed mind that you have to stop at exactly the 5th addition,
> because
> there is a quantity (???) in the number '5' that made you stop there.

Exactly. It is part of the definition of 5.

> Now
> "quantity" is also expressed by numbers, lots of them in applying
> 'rules',
> so don't we see here a circularity?

Yes. I am not explaining the mystery of numbers. I just say that if
comp is true then mind and matter have to be explained from the mystery
of numbers. Sometimes I explain that the natural numbers are a good
starting point in the sense that we cannot recover them without
assuming then. Somehow comp can justify why the natural numbers have to
be mysterious.

> It looks as if the 'numbers' represent quantities?  how about algebra?

Well, the existence of a turing universal diophantine polynomial makes
me realize that the fourth hypostases(*) is closer to a "theory of
elementary particles" than I was hoping for. It has the form of a
complex algebra. Apparently the first string theory (the bosonic one,
which is not "super") is most probably a subtheory of the comp physics.
This could help to extract the quantum physics more rapidly than by an
exhaustive interview of the lobian machine. This gives only quanta,
though, and the interview remains necessary for having the (non
sharable) qualia as well.

> What "key" made you stop at the fifth '1'?
> (I wrote in a similar sense a post to Colin, an hour ago).
>
> You ended your reply with:
>>> "My" Platonism is the explicit or implicit standard platonism of most
> working mathematicians.<<
> Q: is there a way to reach an agreement between  the "working
> mathematicians" and the rest of the world (common sense people)?

I believe there is such a common agreement as far as they talk on
numbers. Only sophisticated philosophers, or mathematicians during the
week-end, like to doubt on that (but stop such doubt in front of they
insurance taxes, etc.).
I would be already glad if working mathematicians (week) were able to
agree with themselves during the wee-end ....

Bruno

(*) Fourth hypostases = Plotinus "intelligible matter" = logic of
certain observation in self-duplicating experiment = logic of Bp & Dp
(which does split through the G* minus G difference). The two 4th
hypostases have no Kripke multiverses, but more sophisticated
topological one.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---