On 3/3/2011 10:44 AM, Pzomby wrote:
My brief opinion(s):
As well as numbers having dispositional and computational properties,
numbers remain symbolic or representative of their own dispositional,
relational and computational characteristics or attributes. A TOE
will describe in detail what numbers, mathematics and languages
represent (or what the computations represent). An accurate
description of the induction of universals (what numbers represent)
into particulars (matter, personhood etc.) would be a result.
‘Numbers’ (along with comp) appear to…like languages, words,
mathematical symbols and notations….have a trait of ‘being’
representational of forces and matter.
If universal numbers along with their dispositions and relations are
at the ontological bottom, then the process, (maybe evolvement or
induction) to matter, forces, body and mind, consciousness and
personhood should be describable in a coherent way.
But Bruno isn't proposing that numbers are the ontological botttom.
He's proposing that computation is. Numbers are just one way of
representing and talking about computation and arithmetic is presumably
familiar to everyone. Whatever is taken as ontologically fundamental
can't be a representation of something else. There is a possibility
though that nothing is fundamental and that explanation and description
is always ultimately circular. If this circle is sufficiently broad, so
as to include everything, it might be considered a virtuous circularity,
rather than the vicious variety we're taught to avoid.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at