On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:

> For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of  
> matter,
> too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
> reffering to some "real" (in the sense of every day usage) object.

Then all physical theories are circular, and explains nothing. All  
theories in physics presuppose arithmetical truth (and even analytical  
truth, but this is just to simplify the derivations). I am aware that  
Hartree Field pretends otherwise, but he is using the numbers  

Of course, the human conception of the numbers depends on the human  
conception of his neighborhood and life, but when searching a TOE we  
have to agree on the simplest objects (ontology) from which we derive  
the others (phenomenology).

> So numbers don't give rise to arithmetical truth,

You need addition, multiplication and classical logic.

> but truth gives rise to
> (expresses as) numbers.

Which truth. What do you mean by 'truth' here?

> Maybe "what really exists" is not a meaningful thing to ask in first  
> place,
> because if something "really" exists, it certainly cannot be  
> expressed with
> words.

Why? This is like asserting there is no TOE, before searching. But  
elementary arithmetics does explain both consciousness, including its  
non definability, and matter, including both its computational and non  
computational aspects.
If you have a better explanation, I can listen, but why not study the  
existing explanation?

> So why aks a question that can't be answered with words at all?

It is up to you to show the question cannot answered at all, and for  
this you need a theory.

> Probably we generally should take words less serious (especially with
> regards to fundamental questions) and expect no satisfying answers  
> from
> them.

This is giving up research. Of course, you can always do that.
Nevertheless, to invoke a vague theory or philosophy to dismiss  
automatically the theories bring by others will not help to progress.  
This is what is done by most "confessional religion" since the  
scientific attitude has been abandoned in theology/fundamental research.

Bruno 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-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to