Tom Caylor wrote:
... 
> The above does not require physical reality, but only concepts that we
> can think about looking inward (eyes closed view).  But even though it
> is "only" conceptual, my point is that we are taking a "leap of faith"
> even when we talk about 1+1=2, classifying an infinite number of cases
> into one equivalence class.
> 
> Perhaps at the core of this issue is whether things like "+" are
> prescriptive or descriptive.  Is it possible that there are universes
> with mathematical "white rabbits" such that when you take 1 thing and
> 1 other thing ("physical" or not) and associate them in any way,
> including just thinking about them, then you don't necessarily get 2
> things (e.g. sometime you get 1 or 3 or 0)?
> 
> Tom

Good point.  I think of 1+1=2 as a model.  Sometimes, as in putting two apples 
in a bag, it fits.   Other times, as in putting two drops of water in a cup, it 
can be reinterpreted to fit (in terms of volumes).  Or, as in a gathering of 
the high school basketball team with 12 members in a room with the high school 
tennis team with 10 members, you may find that 10+12=15.  So applying the model 
requires judgment about what counts and what "+" means.

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to