On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Good point, indeed. I should confess that as soon as I start thinking of
> mathematics then I see no way to define a theory of free will. To this
> end, mathematics is no better than physics.
> Well, the only reasonable idea in this respect that I have heard so far
> is to imagine some master equation that during its evolution in time
> will have several solutions at some times. I guess that one could
> construct such a function.
> The theory of free will could be to be possible in human language though.
Mathematics is the last place we should look to define a theory of free
will. If you have to look at a symbols as a primary source (and I don't
know why anyone would other than out of sentimental reverence) then look at
the difference between natural language and mathematics, isolate that
difference, and see it as a fraction of a totality of possible spans
between closed-literal and open-figurative ontology.
The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be
augmented in a linear fashion, ie by adding instances of whatever arbitrary
number of initial digits you name. With names, you can keep adding names at
the primordial level. You don't have to start with red and blue and then
define everything in terms of red, blue, red*blue, red-blue, or red+blue.
You can have yellow. This is how half of the universe works - the half that
sees an outside world generated by the other half.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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