On 9/7/2012 7:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that what is necessarily true (rationally true)
had to be always true and thus a priori.
But this is just a matter of definition. It remains to be explained
how the necessity is achived and how it is so in the many possible worlds.
Man may think he
created numbers or whatever, but whatever was there
before man (to allow physics etc. to happen) something else
had to create.Man simply discovered numbers.
Certainly we can agree that we have a common concept of "numbers"
but they are not concrete entities that we can locate in our "space" and
"time" and do not have any other properties such as mass, charge, spin,
duration. Therefore we have to not use the same terminology and "common
sense" with numbers as we do with ordinary objects of the world. One of
my motivations as a student of philosophy, is to explore multiple ways
to bring the common sense in alignment with the requirements of
abstractions, like numbers and to look forward from this alignment to
see what might be indicated or predicted.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
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:email@example.com>
*Time:* 2012-09-06, 11:35:56
*Subject:* Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at