Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to
communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are
arguing against a straw man. What you write here as "Stephen's idea" is
as Wolfgang Pauli might say: "not even wrong". I am proposing that
numbers and arithmetical truth are (at least) relational structures
within the realm of the mind, the mind of observers which are not
exclusive to humans. *Any system* that can implement a unitary
transformation would have a mind by my definition. The dualism that I am
advocating is explained in Vaughan Pratt's paper
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf and is a rehabilitation of
Descartes failed version by dropping the idea of a "primitive substance"
and using the natural duality of Categories to co-define "minds" and
"bodies". Becoming is considered to be the fundamental primitive. This
idea of becoming is explained
On 7/31/2012 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I was just opposing Stephen's idea with the comp idea that numbers and
arithmetical truth is a (human) mental construct necessitating some
primitive time, space or physical reality. With comp, I argue that
arithmetical truth is simpler and can explain why the numbers (or
better the person associated to those numbers) construct ideas of time
and space, and why they can believe in some genuine way in them, and
be deluded in believing that they are primitive.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
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