On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.
Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need
to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? It seems
to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation
of arithmetics! Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a
single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways
and developing communication methods between themselves.
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such
as numbers. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not
transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which
can transform and remain the same!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at