On 02 Jul 2009, at 00:22, John Mikes wrote:

> I don't deny the practicality of applying 'numbers-based' science in  
> sending a man to Mars, but it is NOT the numbers that does the job.  
> It is the complexity of the state of the art we reached, which  
> includes science, technology, skills, ideas AND of course numbers- 
> application. Bohm's idea - as I understood it - was that searching  
> nature, you do not bounce into numbers,  you can observe 3-leaf or  
> 4legged and manyshaped things, big and small, YOU (the human) can  
> 'count them' if you invented the symbols 1 2 3 4 etc. but these  
> refer to quantities and it required lots of abstracting in mental  
> evolution to arrive in a numbers-based math - how humans think about  
> nature.

I know well that theory. It is based on the idea that some primary  
Nature exists. A common "superstition" among christians and atheists.  
Which could be true, actually. I don't know.

But what I am almost completely sure, is that if comp is true, then it  
is has to be supersitution. And that is what I try to explain.

> Thanks again and my mind works in crooked ways, if you can excuse me  
> for that. It seems I need too much learning to catch up.

You are welcome. If you have the time and courage, I really encourage  
you to follow the thread. You may be surprised ... soon!



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to