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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
