Quentin:
excellent. Your Voltairian acridity showed perfectly how bad my argument
was. A typical gotcha.
Now aout existence: that (noun!) concept is the target of my frequent
question, I used the topic as: "to" exist, a verb, in the widest sense.
What may lead to desperate argumentation about the meaning. I extended it
into
"whatever emerged in any mind DOES exist. I semingly restriceted the numbers
into human minds (human logic) not knowing about better applications than
the human counting-related quantizing.
Maybe you know about 'number-roles' in pre-human times substituting for
"many/few" in the extremely diverse scales for (humanly) unidentified
features.
As you see, I accept a good argument.

Thanks

John M


On 8/2/10, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2010/8/2 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com>
>
>> Brian,
>> nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's
>> application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for
>> the stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano
>> axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the origination of
>> numbers. They USE them and EXPLAIN sich usage. Use what????
>> I wonder if you have an example where application of numbers is
>> extractable from ANY quantity the numbers refer to?
>> <Three plus four> is not different from <blue plus loud>, <sound plus
>> speed>, *whatever*, meaningless words bound together. UNless - of course
>> - you as a human, with human logic and complexity, UNDERSTAND the amount
>> *three* added to a *comparable* amount of *four *and RESULT in 
>> *sevenpertaining to the same kind of amount.
>> *
>> **
>> *Axioms* however sounds to my vocabulary like inventions helping to
>> justify our theories. Sometimes quite weird.
>> And *Brent* was so right:  *"...I don't think the existence of some
>> number of distinct things is the same as the "existence" of numbers...."*
>> - Tegmark's quoted "accounted for..." is not "consists of".
>> *To 'explain'   *something by a conceptualization does not substitute for
>> the existence and justification of such conceptualization.
>>
>> Does it make sense that 'numbers existed' when nobody was around to *K N
>> O W  or  U S E??*
>>
>
> Yes... provided you use the same meaning as me for existence...
>
> All of this is linked to what you mean by "existed"...  asked otherwise,
>
> Does it make sense to say that 'the universe existed' when nobody was
> around to *K N O W  it existed ??*
>
> Quentin
>
>
>> Especially when they did not*  C O U N T*  anything? BTW: what are those
>> abstract symbols you refer to as numbers?
>> (and this question is understood for times way before humans and human
>> thinking).
>> Sorry I asked
>>
>> John M
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/10, Brian Tenneson <tenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different.
>>>
>>> The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not dependent
>>> on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite sets by assuming
>>> an induction property held by (sets of) numbers.
>>>
>>> So while counting may not have been around forever, numbers have,
>>> independent of us humans.  The Peano axioms are totally free of human
>>> baggage and did not need Peano to utter them in order for numbers to exist.
>>> Consequently, I believe most if not all of math is discovered.
>>>
>>> The formalism for counting as describing a one-to-one correspondence to a
>>> (formally defined) finite set of numbers also exists independent of humans
>>> in the same way that the unit circle exists.  The formalism for counting is
>>> of course not how biological machines such as we count; the formalism is
>>> just meant to intuitively express what we actually do when we count.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/29/2010 3:28 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics suggests maybe not. If there were no conscious
>>> observers to collapse the wave function of the universe after the big bang,
>>> then what, pray tell, would constitute an atom that might be counted?
>>>
>>> This assumes that conscious observers are necessary to collapse the wave
>>> function, of course.
>>> --
>>> Mark Buda <her...@acm.org>
>>> I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> On Jul 29, 2010 2:01 PM, Brian Tenneson 
>>> <tenn...@gmail.com><tenn...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Numbers existed before people on this rock began to understand them.  If
>>> not number of atoms in the universe, then the number of cells in organisms
>>> one day prior to 10,000 years ago. or anything really, that had the
>>> potential to be counted, one day prior to 10,000 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the existence of some number of distinct things is the same
>>> as the "existence" of numbers.  Numbers are defined by order and successor -
>>> neither of which are present or implicit in a mere collection of atoms or
>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to