On Mar 6, 10:14 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 06 Mar 2012, at 17:32, meekerdb wrote:
> > On 3/6/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> It's a language game.
> >> The word "game" is so fuzzy that this says nothing at all. Game
> >> theory is a branch of mathematics.
> > But "language" says something. It says mathematics is about
> > description.
> Mathematicians search what is language independent, and description
> independent. They don't like when a result depends on the choice of a
> base. Mathematics is more about structures and laws.
> Math uses languages, but is not a language, even if it can be used as
> such in physics. But there is more to that.
“Cardinal” numbers with values appear to necessarily use language to
describe the unit being measured or quantified (tons, kilos, etc.)?
“In common usage, an ordinal number is an adjective which describes
the numerical position of an object, e.g., first, second, third,
Are the “ordinal” numbers actually adjectives describing the
relational position in a sequence (first, second,…one-ness, two-ness
etc.)? Are numbers (ordinal) necessarily qualitative descriptions?
Numerals symbolize number position (as in particular instants in the
sequence of the continuum of time).
> Are you agnostic about the question if reality is physical, or
> mathematical, or theological or ?. To say that math is on description
> seem a bit physicalist.
> Comp makes the tiny sigma_1 segment of arithmetic rather fundamental.
> We don't (nor can need) more "reality" than that, for this is from
> inside (epistemologically, ...) *very* big, and structured. It is far
> bigger from inside than from outside.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at