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, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto: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:* Brian Tenneson <mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *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 <rclo...@verizon.net
    <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> 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, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto: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 <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
            *Receiver:* everything-list
            <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
            *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, rclo...@verizon.net
            <mailto: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 <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>
                *Receiver:* everything-list
                <mailto: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
                <mailto:%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.

Reply via email to