I couldn't agree more. On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>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, [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 <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[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]> 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] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[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<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] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[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]<%[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. > -- 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.
