All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question becomes this: do sets have ontological primacy relative to mankind or are sets invented or created by mankind?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > Yes, of course, but I wanted a more obvious, dramatic example. > The philosophy of mathematics says something like the numbers > belong to a static or eternal world, change itself is a property of > geometry. > Numbers and geometry thus belong to the platonic world, > which is forbidden or at least not consistent with the philosophy > of materialism, IMHO. > > If numbers are platonic, I wonder what the presumably materialist > Steven Hawkings has to say about their origin in his recent > book on numbers. > > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/6/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-09-06, 07:53:18 > *Subject:* Re: Could we have invented the prime numbers ? > > Dear Roger, > > Could the mere possibility of being a number (without the specificity > of which one) be considered to be "there from the beginning"? > > On 9/6/2012 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stathis Papaioannou > > If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man, > then I think they were mind-created (platonic) not brain-created (human > creations). > > Are the prime numbers an invention by man or one of man's discoveries ? > > I believe that the prime numbers are not a human invention, > they were there from the beginning. Humans can discover > them by brute calculation, but there is a pattern to them > (except for 1, 3 and 5, spaced 6 apart, plus or minus one) > > Thus 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 etc. > > > for n>5, they can be placed +-1 on a grid with a spacing of 6 > > That spacing seems to me at least to be a priori, out of man's control. > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/6/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-09-06, 01:24:31 > *Subject:* Re: Sane2004 Step One > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whatsons...@gmail.com<%20whatsons...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > >> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain > >> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from > >> the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing, > >> but maintain the delusional belief that nothing had changed. > >> > >> > > > > That's begging the question. You are assuming that the brain is a machine > > which produces consciousness. I think that the brain is the three > > dimensional shadow of many levels of experience and it produces nothing > but > > neurochemistry and alterations in our ability to access an individual > set of > > human experiences. The brain does not produce consciousness, it defines > the > > form of many conscious relations. > > But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what > chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing > without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential or > ligand concentration. We've talked about this before and it just isn't > consistent with any scientific evidence. You interpret the existence > "spontaneous neural activity" as meaning that something magical like > this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
