On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote: > > On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >> >> >>> but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a >>> computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and >>> time that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine it >>> in no time and no space. IMHO. >>> >> >> That's what I think too, geometry without space isn't geometry, so that >> there is no reason to assume that mathematics produces geometric >> presentations, or that it could possibly produce them. If we want >> mathematics to occupy space, we have to pull that possibility out of thin >> air, as well as the capacity for numbers to suddenly do that (and why would >> they need to?) >> >> Craig >> >> > > Doesn't the quantum physical reality of information mean that all math > *is* geometry? > > Put another way, math without a substratum would be in some platonic > world, and not the real one, so aren't you basically asking if there's some > way to do math without form? >
Even if math requires form, it still only requires a binary-digital form, not geometric presentations. I'm not asking if there's a way of doing math without form, I am asserting that form does not follow from math, and would be useless, redundant, and probably impossible for math to generate if we assume math in a Platonic world. > Forgive me if I'm being an idoit. ;) > Not at all, I thought it was a good question. Craig > > ~Simon > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
