On 11/4/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
The primacy of 17 or 43 or any other number is such that it can
be apprehended, at least in principle, by /at least one entity/
(please note that this is a lower bound concept!). This implies that
in the absence of that possibility of apprehension (by at least one
entity) that there is no such thing as primeness.
This is totally ridiculous, Stephen. With comp, it is obvious that the
primacy of 43 is conceptually far simpler than the (true) fact that
the primacy of 43 can be apprehended by a type of machine/numbers.
You are like a biologist telling Morgan that it is stupid to hope to
understand the genetic of the fly before understanding the genetic of
the zoologist.
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
NO! What I am doing is like demanding that Morgan exists before I
will agree that Morgan knows about the genetics of a fly.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
