On 27 Sep 2012, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/27/2012 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:


So you mean if some mathematical object implies a contradiction it doesn't exist, e.g. the largest prime number. But then of course the proof of contradiction is relative to the axioms and rules of inference.

Well there is always some theory we have to assume, some model we operate under. This is needed just to communicate or to think.

The contradiction proof is relevant to some theory, but so is the existence proof. You can't even define an object without using some agreed upon theory.

Sure you can. You point and say, "That!" That's how you learned the meaning of words, by abstracting from a lot of instances of your mother pointing and saying, "That."

But this uses implicit theories selected by evolution. A brain *is* essentially a theory of the "local universe" already.

At least that's your theory.  :-)

Hmm... If by brain you mean the material object, then a brain is not a theory, but the 3-I, the body description at the right comp- substitution level, is the theory. It is a word (finite object) interpreted by a universal system (physical forces, QM, bosons and fermions). The *material* brain, unfortunately perhaps, is not a word, it is an infinity of words interpreted by an infinity of "competing" universal numbers.

We have to explain, with comp, why little numbers seems to win, because we can't prevent all the numbers to add their grains of salt, hopefully not their buggy grains of sand generating noise and/or white rabbits.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to