Dear Roger,
Why is it that people persist in even suggesting that numbers are
"created by man"? Why the anthropocentric bias? Pink Ponies might have
actually crated them, or Polka-dotted Unicorns! The idea is just silly!
The point is that properties do not occur at the whim of any one thing,
never have and never will.
On 9/6/2012 11:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brian Tenneson
I'm just to establish the fact that numbers are a priori
and so not created by man. Given that, it doesn't matter if sets are
a priori or not. Presumably (I am not a mathematician) you cannot
have sets without numbers, so the numbers rule.
Roger Clough, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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:* Brian Tenneson <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-09-06, 10:28:51
*Subject:* Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
�
Yes, of course, but I wanted a more obvious, dramatic爀xample.
The philosophy of mathematics says something like the numbers
belong to a static or eternal world, change爄tself 爄s 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,營 wonder what the� presumably
materialist
Steven Hawkings has to say about their origin in his recent
book on numbers.
�
�
�
Roger Clough, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-09-06, 07:53:18
*Subject:* Re: Could we have invented the prime numbers ?
Dear Roger,
牋� 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
<tel:47%2053%2059%2061%2067> 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, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-09-06, 01:24:31
*Subject:* Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
<[email protected]
<mailto:%[email protected]>> 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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
