Günther, *please see inserted in "JM:" lines* John On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl <[email protected] > wrote:
> > John, > > my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe > two books could give you the central idea: > > Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from, > > which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations > (materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out). JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers"<G>) > > > The next step then is to realize that modern physics gives us only > relational knowledge of the world JM: (misunderstood) conclusions upon (m..) conclusions ((figments)) based on millennia of '(mis)observations' and their explanations within the simplex and ever enriching epistemic cognitive inventory level (still growing) - always keeping the prior art and amend after amendment and so on. The 'physical world' is - as a 'whole' - an [axiomatic?] misconception needed to maintain the theoretical tenets of (conventional) sciences. > > > Ladyman Et Al. Every thing must go. > > (for an excellent overview and discussion), and that matter is indeed > not "needed" (this was the crossing point into number-reality for me, > not the Maudlin thought experiment, because I am somewhat skeptical of > thought experiments (you never know if you've forgotten hidden > assumptions etc)). JM: I take it as 'thought experiments' to fabricate unreasonable circumstances to prove (or at least facilitate) the hypothetical occurrence of otherwise not realizable theoretical ideas. I would exclude them from the scientific thinking. The EPR kicked physics - now 8 decades - into highly mathematized sci-fi. Nobel prizes notwithstanding. > > > Computatations (that's the transition to pure number) then give a more > well defined picture than "all of mathematics", which gives no handle > whatever on white rabbits etc. > > But then book one (Lakoff Et Al) fits again nicely into the bigger > picture, explaining how certain structures can evolve to see numbers > (one simply drops the materialist *tenor*). JM: (pun!) I would drop the mathematicist *terror* as well. I have a problem with "evolving" *structures *at all. Unless one 'believes' in *energy??? *that has become somehow and is directed somehow into doing something. What?? > > > Best Wishes, > Günther JM: Respectfully John > > > John Mikes wrote: > > Günther and Bruno, > > > > am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study > > all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and > > could even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the > > next 30 or so years... > > > > Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS that young and did not start. > > I was busy making 20+ more practical polymer related patents without > > even thinking of the futility of "physical World" illusions. I just > > lived (in it)/(them). > > > > I am happy in my scientific agnosticim and would love to read something > > to bring me closer to the idea that 'numbers' consitute the world and > > not "are the mental products of us, eventuel travellers in this (one) > > universe." > > > > Bruno used the word 'axiomatic', in my vocabulary an axiom is an > > unjustifiable belief (illusion?) necessary to maintain the validity of a > > theory - in this case the 'physical world'. Like: 2 + 2 = 4 - > > > > Br:"> AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or > > > recursively enumerable theories, of machine...." > > > > Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference? Or 'Self' > > for that matter? 'Recursively' I agree with, it is 'within'. Machine > > (limited capability) is 'us', so the 'enumerable theories' are OK. > > With such handicap in my thinking it is hard to fully follow the flow of > > the (A)UDA dicussions. I try. > > > > Best regards > > > > John M > ----------------------- > truncated > > > Günther Greindl > Department of Philosophy of Science > University of Vienna > [email protected] > > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
