*<<I agree with you that an arbitrary decision cannot be either random or
the consequence of an explicit rule or law. Hence an arbitrary choice
is indeed freely willed, by convention. What I do not see, however, is
how this can have any metaphysical implications for particular agents,
whose performance against these criteria can only ever be evaluated to
some limit. If this is a problem for mathematicians or mathematics,
AFAICS it is an unavoidable one.
*The consequence is as follows. If one uses mathematics he cannot deny
existence of mental processes which are physically impossible (I do mean
free will choice outside mathematics). Thank yoyu for understanding.*
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin <aaloks...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite
>> set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7
>> objects simultaneously.
> That's just about the number of distinct "chunks" of information you can
> hold in working memory, so that you can name the distinctive features of
> each one after they are removed from your sense experience (see
> http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html ). But
> I'm not talking about actually visualizing each and every member of an
> infinite set, such that I am aware of the distinctive features of each one
> which differentiate them from the others. I'm talking about a more abstract
> understanding that a certain property applies to every member, perhaps
> simply by definition (for example, triangles are defined to be three-sided,
> so three-sidedness is obviously one of the common properties of the set of
> all triangles). Do you think it's impossible to have an abstract
> understanding that a large (perhaps infinite) set of objects all share a
> particular property?
>> Your remarkable objection that "*if two mathematicians consider two
>> different arbitrary objects they will obtain different results"* demonstrates
>> that you are not a mathematician.
> Huh? I didn't write the phrase you put in quotes, nor imply that this was
> how *I* thought mathematicians actually operated--I was just saying that
> *you* seemed to be suggesting that mathematicians could only prove things
> by making specific choices of examples to consider, using their free will.
> If that's not what you were suggesting, please clarify (and note that I did
> ask if this is what you meant in my previous post, rather than just
> assuming it...I then went on to make the conditional statement that IF that
> was indeed what you meant, THEN you should find it impossible to explain
> how mathematicians could be confident that a theorem could not be falsified
> by a new choice of example. But of course I might be misunderstanding your
> argument, that's why I asked if my reading was correct.)
>> Arbitrary element is not an object, it is a mental but non-physical
>> process which* enables one to do a physically impossible thing : to
>> observe an infinite set of objects simultaneously* considering then all
>> their common properties at a single really existing object. Therefore two
>> different mathematicians will necessarily obtain the same result.
> So you agree mathematicians don't have to make an actual choice of a
> specific element to consider? Then how is free will supposed to be relevant
> if there is no actual choice whatsoever being made?
> 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
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