On 04 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Bruno,

There was a typing error in what I wrote originally. Please try it again.

On 8/4/2012 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and that is exactly why I am asking you to reconsider the idea that "arithmetic is ontologically primitive"! When we reduce a class to the ontological primitive level (meaning that all else supervenes upon that class or some subclass thereof), then we make the relational structure of that class degenerate. We literally eliminate the meaningfulness of the class if we make it uniquely primitive. This is why a primitive class is denoted as "neutral". It cannot be "any particular thing", it is either "Everything" or "Nothing" or both simultaneously (depending on your pedagogical stance).

I cannot give sense to that paragraph.

    Are you familiar with the concept of degeneracy?

Explain why assuming addition and multiplication makes arithmetic or reality degenerate. Again, even if true, it cannot be relevant, given that I explain why and how physics (both the sharable part (quanta) and the non sharable part (qualia) are entirely reduced to number's theology, and this in a way which refutes once and for all any reductionist conception of the soul/person.

You seem to always start from the conclusion, and criticize it for philosophical reason. You should proceed in the other way round: start from the assumption (comp) and use your philosophical idea to find a flaw in the reasoning.



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