On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:

## Advertising

On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that youcannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existenceof computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If youbelieve you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like aliterary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition andmultiplication in the sense I would wait for.Dear Bruno,Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that Ineed to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic?

`Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers,`

`so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume.`

It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the sourceof derivation of arithmetics!

But you have to derive the physical activity first, then.

Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entitybut that of many entities, each counting in their own ways anddeveloping communication methods between themselves.Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible formaterial things to have representations of things, intensionality,such as numbers.

`yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you`

`prove it first.`

Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transformthemselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which cantransform and remain the same!

? (looks like a prose to me). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.