I couldn't agree more.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  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
> 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 <tenn...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <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> 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
>> 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,
>>
>> 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<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
>> 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.

Reply via email to