On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote:On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken toomuch seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact thatmath is about immaterial relation between non material beings. Couldyou give me an explanation that 34 is less than 36 by using aphysics which does not presuppose implicitly the numbers.|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Nice, indeed. We do agree that 34 is less than 36, and what that means.I am not sure your proof is physical thought. Physics has been veryuseful to convey the idea, and I thank God for not having made mycomputer crashed when reading your post, but I see you onlyteleporting information. That fact that you are using the physicalreality to convey an idea does not make that idea physical.I was expecting a physical definition of the numbers.

`Of course there is no physical definition of the numbers because the`

`usual definition includes the axiom of infinity. As finite beings we`

`can hypothesize infinities.`

By thinking that I can understand your proof, you are presupposingmany things, including the numbers, and the way to compare them.

`On the contrary I think you (and Peano) conceived of numbers by`

`considering such such examples. The examples presuppose very little -`

`probably just the perceptual power the evolution endowed us with.`

So it is a funny answer, which did surprise me, but which avoids thedifficulty of defining what (finite) numbers are.It *is* a theorem in logic, that we can't define them "univocally" infirst order logical system. We can define them in second order logic,but this one use the intuition of number.If you agree that physics is well described by QM, an explanation of34 < 36 should be a theorem in quantum physics,

`I'm sure it is. If you add 34 electrons to 36 positrons you get two`

`positrons left over.`

`Physics is not an axiomatic system. Physicists use mathematics (in`

`preference to other languages) in order to be precise and to avoid`

`self-contradiction. That doesn't mean that physics is mathematics.`

`That |||||| is fewer than ||||||| is a fact about the world, that 5<7 is`

`a theorem in mathematics which may be interpreted as a description of`

`that fact. But when talking philosophy we should be careful to`

`distinguish facts from descriptions of the facts.`

but the problem here is that quantum physics assumes real numbers andwaves (trigonometrical functions), and that reintroduce the numbers atthe base.

`If it were an axiomatic system it would have lots of axioms (probably`

`including Peano's) but it isn't. I'm not sure axioms are "assumptions"`

`though.`

Brent

BrunoBrent --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~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-list@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.