On 04 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Stephen P. King wrote:
There was a typing error in what I wrote originally. Please try
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
I cannot give sense to that paragraph.
Are you familiar with the concept of degeneracy?
Explain why assuming addition and multiplication makes arithmetic or
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at