On Aug 5, 1:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2011, at 01:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > That is my point exactly: inter-subjective agreement is as close to
> > objectivity that we can get.
> Of course this is debatable. I would say that elementary arithmetic is  
> objective per se. But physical realities can indeed be shown, or  
> argued to be,  a first person plural construct in the DM theory.

It's an interesting proposition, but gets semantic and murky around
what we really mean by arithmetic. We would personally have to access
arithmetic through subjective awareness, so wouldn't that make it part
of our physical reality? I think that I could have a dream where 2+2=5
and it could make perfect sense in the dream. I would say that it's
still intersubjective, only the scope of phenomena which shares access
to it encompasses non-living matter as well as symbolic abstraction.
Also, what if a system of arithmetic is derived from physical
isomorphism instead? If, like drops of water, 2+2 =1 big water drop.

I do agree that arithmetic may be as close to objective that we can
get, but I'm not convinced that it doesn't arise from proto-numerical
phenomena of an infra-quantitative, gestural nature.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to