On 12/9/2011 11:48 AM, Pzomby wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:20 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote:

On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>    wrote:
On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without
any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for
granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying "A creator God is just
there, we have to take him for granted". It makes no sense (it would be a
totally absurd universe), and there also is no evidence that natural laws
are primary (we don't find laws to describe the Big Bang and very plausibly,
there are none because it is a mathematical singularity).
You are attributing a naive concept of physical laws to "we".  Physical laws 
are models we
make up to explain and predict the world.  That's why they change when we get 
information.  Mathematical singularities are in the mathematics.  Nobody 
supposes they are
in the world.
You state: Physical laws are models we make up to explain and predict
the world.  Are properties of mathematics then dual, being both
representational (models) and encoded (rules) as instantiated brain
Mathematics is a subset of language in which propositions are related by rules 
inference that preserve "truth".  We can use it to talk about all kinds of 
things, both
real and fictional.  We try to create mathematical models where possible 
because then we
have the rules of inference to make predictions that are precise.  Where our 
models are
not mathematical, e.g. in politics or psychology, it's never clear exactly what 
the model

I think the rules of inference are encoded in our brains.  See William S. 
Coopers book
"The Evolution of Reason".

In other words could the singularity in mathematics you refer to be
further divided?
The singularity I was referring to is the hypersurface of infinite energy 
density and
curvature which general relativity predicts at the center of a black hole and 
the Big
Bang.  It is in the mathematical model - which only shows that the model 
doesn't apply at
these extreme conditions.  This was not a surprise to anyone, since it was 
already known
that general relativity isn't compatible with quantum mechanics and is expected 
breakdown at extremely high energies and short distances.



I was attempting to go down another layer of understanding as I see
it.  I will restate an abbreviated opinion:

Numerals (mathematics) and languages are themselves fundamental
instantiations of the laws/rules/inferences of truth… abstract
mathematics representing the precise observed or discovered structure
and order of the universe and the semantically less precise languages
are used to interpret and communicate the mathematical models in
descriptions and predictions of the universe.

I think it's a mistake to think mathematics has something to do with truth. Truth is an attribute of a proposition that expresses a fact. Mathematics consists of relations of inference between propositions - which may or may not express anything at all beyond the relations.

Mathematics...has multi faceted properties, being at least (1)
representational numbers as in descriptively enumerated models as well
as adjective position in spatiotemporal sequence (ordinals) and (2)
computable numbers as in counting and arithmetic.

Mathematics doesn't exist in space and time; although it may be used to 
describe them.

Your statement: “I think the rules of inference are encoded in our
brains”, This, I think, infers that primitive mathematics and
languages are instantiated in the biological brain and can,
*potentially*, represent or reflect any and all laws and rules
fundamental to the real (even abstract) and fictional universe.

I don't think laws/rules are fundamental. They are compact models we make up to explain and predict facts.


role of human embodied consciousness in any “theory of everything” is
established by this fact.

Mathematics may be “a subset of language” as you state or language
could also be an extension or instantiation (as a concrete verbal
idea) of what primitive mathematics represents (abstract rules/laws).
In either case it becomes circular as to what is more relevant…
mathematics or the language to understand what the mathematics
represents or enumerates.

It is my opinion that there is no singularity but a duality which
roughly could be stated as both “a state of being” (quanta) and the
“reason of being” (qualia) (access to abstract primitive laws/rules or

as you state “newer information”).

Perhaps monistic materialism and monistic idealism are semantically
created notions that lack “newer information”.

Thanks for your comments.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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