Dear Bruno,
on diverse lists I bounce into the 'numbers' idea - in different variations.
I wonder if your position states that the world (whatever) has been
'erected' (wrong word) based on integer numbers and their additive
multiplicity, or it can be 'explained' by such?
It makes a big difference in my agnostic views (I dunno) because to explain
is human logic (never mind which kind) while to erect means ontological bind
- what I cannot condone in its entire meaning.
Consciousness came up as being primary or not: I hope thought of in my
version, as *"response to information*" - with *response* in ANY way and *
information* as our acquired knowledge of relations among components of the
totality (unlimited wholeness).
Numbers, however, as I referred to earlier - quoting David Bohm, are *'human
inventions'* - unidentified further. Now I got additional news from *Keith
Devlin* (Stanford U., *"The Math Gene: "How Matheamtical Thinking Evolved*" and
*"Why Numbers Are Like Gos*sip" - plus other ~2 dozen books) who stated

*"Numbers are so ubiquitous and seem so concrete, it is easy to forget they
are *
*a human invention and a recent one at that, dating back only 10,000 years.
*Though the things we count are often in the world, the numbers we use to
count *
*them are figments of our imagination. For that reason we should not be
surprised *
*(though we usually are) to discover they are usually influenced by the way
our *
*brains work.< ... > When we try to attach numbers to things in the world ,
as *
*William Poundstone describes, we find psychology gets into the mix. *
*Numbers may be - I think they are - among the most concrete and
precise ways *
*to describe our world, but they are still a human creation, and as such
they reflect *
*us as much as the things in our environment."*

~2,500 years ago 'math' with the then recently acquired 'numbers-knowledge'
had but a little domain to overcome and our awe for the wisdom of the old
Greeks accepted the numbers as 'GOD". I have no problem to use numbers
for *explaining
*most of the world (the only exceptions I carried earlier were the
'non-quantizable' concepts - earlier, I said, because lately I condone in my
agnosticism that there may be ways (beyond our knowledge of yesterday) to
find quantitative characteristics in those, as well) but in our 'yesterday's
views' I don't want to give up to find something more *general and
underlying* upon which even the numbers can be used and applied for the
world, of which our human mind is a part - that invented the numbers.

Anoither question arose in my mind about the discussion with Rex Allen: the
postulate that the world is Turing Emulable - as per your not too thoroughly
detailed response to me some time ago - would refer to 'more than just the
binary contraptions we presently use as "Turing Machines" - but - maybe - a
*Universal Machine (Computer*) that covers all. This position would make the
thing volatile: meaning that the world is "emulable" by some construct that
makes it - well, emulable. (We know precious little about the (technical)
workings of the so called  Universal Machine). In that case I would write
the name of Turing at least in lower case as a *type*: *'turing'* to
eliminate the reference to the very invention of *Alan Turing. *
John M

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to